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
FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WOULD NOT BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE AND THE EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT REQUIRING INSURANCE WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE ABSENT A SPECIFIC PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY PROPERLY WITHDREW ON IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES GROUNDS AND WAS ENTITLED TO 95% OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT TIME RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
A CORRECTION LAW PROVISION INSULATED THE PETITIONER-INMATE FROM DISCIPLINE FOR SENDING A LETTER REQUESTING AN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY CHANGE REGARDING VENDORS WHICH SUPPLY PACKAGES TO PRISONS (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (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...