You are here: / / PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS...

PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the paternity petition should have been dismissed on equitable estoppel grounds. Petitioner provided semen for the artificial insemination of mother, who is married to her same sex partner. The artificial insemination was not done by a doctor in accordance with Domestic Relations Law 73, so the statutory presumption of legitimacy did not apply. The parties agreed in a “Three-Party Donor Contract” that the petitioner would not have parental rights or responsibilities:

… [I]t is undisputed that all of the parties intended that the petitioner would not be a parent to the child, even if they did contemplate some amount of contact after birth. The petitioner was not present at the child’s birth, and was not named on her birth certificate. Despite the fact that he was undeniably aware of the child’s birth and his possible claim to paternity, the petitioner waited more than three years to assert his claim of parentage. During that time, the child has lived with and been cared for exclusively by the respondents, each of whom has developed a loving parental relationship with her. Although the petitioner asserts that he has had some contact with the child, he does not claim that he has developed a parental relationship with the child or that she recognizes him as a father. Significantly, the petitioner acknowledges that he does not actually seek a parental role, only that he wants a legal right to visitation with the child. Under these circumstances, we find that a hearing was unnecessary, and it is in the child’s best interests to dismiss the paternity petition on the ground of equitable estoppel …  Under the particular circumstances presented here, it would be unjust and inequitable to disrupt the child’s close parental relationship with each of the respondents and permit the petitioner take a parental role when he has knowingly acquiesced in the development of a close relationship between the child and another parent figure … . Matter of Joseph O. v Danielle B., 2018 NY Slip Op 01192, Second Dept 2-21-18

FAMILY LAW (PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PATERNITY (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, (PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS IN THIS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CASE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted to Prove Identity and Intent—There Was No Unique Modus Operandi Which Would Prove Identity and Intent Could Be Inferred from the Commission of the Acts Charged
ALLEGED DEPICTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS IN A VIDEO GAME NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLACEMENT OF A FLOWER POT NEAR THE BASKETBALL COURT DID NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE INHERENT RISKS OF PLAYING BASKETBALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND A REPORT TO THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS REJECTED AS DEFICIENT, THE MOTION CONSTITUTED INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (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

NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN FATHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL... ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY...