You are here: / / THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT...
, ,

THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY WAS BASED ON A MISREPRESENTATION BY MOTHER AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING PATERNITY BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner was entitled to a hearing on the issues of whether petitioner’s (appellant’s) acknowledgment of paternity was procured by a misrepresentation by mother and, if so, whether the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the acknowledgment based on the best interests of the child. As is often the case in Family Court reversals, the failure to hold a hearing is the problem:

“Where . . . a party seeks to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution, Family Court Act § 516-a(b) requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine the issues of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact [in the execution of the acknowledgment of paternity] before ordering a [genetic marker test]” … . “In the event the court determines that a valid ground for vacatur of the acknowledgment exists, the issue of whether the petitioner should be estopped, in accordance with the child’s best interest, from vacating the acknowledgment of paternity, must [then also] be evaluated at a hearing” … . * * *

Here, the issue of the appellant’s paternity was not actually litigated in connection with the prior proceedings … . The Family Court’s findings … that the appellant, … would have been equitably estopped from seeking vacatur of the acknowledgment of paternity, were made without a hearing, during an appearance on the appellant’s petitions to modify custody and visitation, when, in response to the appellant raising the issue of his attempts to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, the attorney for the child indicated that the child viewed the appellant as her father. Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable … . Matter of Stephen B.J.B. v Marcia N.S.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01921, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The most frequent basis for Family Court reversals is the judge’s failure to hold a hearing before making a ruling.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S GOOD-FAITH AFFIRMATION DID NOT INCLUDE DETAILS OF ANY EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE DISCOVERY ISSUE AND WAS THEREFORE INADEQUATE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT TO A DEPOSITION UNDER THREAT OF PRECLUSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DECIDED TO ANONYMIZE POTENTIAL AND EMPANELED JURORS IN THIS MURDER TRIAL; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ANONYMIZED JURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND DID NOT WARRANT INTERVENTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE EFFECT OF THE ANONYMIZED JURY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY-RELATED ACTIONS WERE NOT WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS SUCH THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S DISCOVERY DELAYS WARRANTED VACATING THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND PAYMENT OF $3000 TO DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER MAKING A FINAL AWARD, THE RABBINICAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A SECOND AWARD BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE.
FATHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Testimony by the Vehicle Owner that His Vehicle Was “Missing” at the Time of the Accident Did Not Overcome the Statutory Presumption the Vehicle Was Being Driven with the Owner’s Consent at the Time of the Accident
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND... THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY TIMELY RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM...