You are here: / / Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s...

Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s Ruling to the Contrary Reversed

The Second Department reversed Family Court and determined the petitioner was not estopped from denying his paternity of the child. No parental relationship had developed, the child did not know the petitioner and the mother had told the petitioner he was not the child’s father:

“The purpose of equitable estoppel is to prevent someone from enforcing rights that would work injustice on the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, while justifiably relying on the opposing party’s actions, has been misled into a detrimental change of position'” … . Thus, “a man who has held himself out to be the father of a child, so that a parent-child relationship developed between the two, may be estopped from denying paternity,” in light of the child’s justifiable reliance upon such representations, and the resulting harm that the man’s denial of paternity would engender … . “The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'” … . The doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the subject child (see Family Ct Act § 418[a]…).

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in concluding that the petitioner was estopped from denying his paternity of the child (see Family Ct Act § 418[a]). The hearing evidence demonstrated that the petitioner did not have a parent-child relationship since the child was approximately three years old at the time when the petitioner learned from the mother that he was not the child’s father and the parties separated. The mother testified that the child did not know the petitioner as his father and that the two had not seen each other in years. There was no evidence that the child would suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of her family image, or other harm to her physical or emotional well-being if this proceeding were permitted to go forward … . Matter of Felix M v Leonardo RC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04491, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NON-PARTY SUBLESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PREMISES; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained
Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained
HERE THE DEFENDANT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY DID NOT NOTIFY PLAINTIFF OF THE CHANGED SALE-DATE AND DISPOSED OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY AT THE TIME OF THE SALE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE LIEN LAW AND DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE IT TOOK ACTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (c) (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETER; A NEW HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN INADEQUATELY PROTECTED HOLE IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WHEN HE (APPARENTLY) WAS DOING WORK ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, APPARENTLY A TENANT IN THE BUILDING; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER; BUT PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO PROOF HIS EMPLOYER HAD ASSUMED THE DUTIES OF AN AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR SUPERVISION OF HIS WORK, THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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

Juvenile Entitled to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—Family... Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated