You are here: / / GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER...

GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY.

The Second Department determined Family Court erred by ordering genetic marker testing before resolving the issue of equitable estoppel:

Family Court Act § 532 provides that, in a proceeding to establish paternity, “on the court’s own motion or the motion of any party, [the court] shall order the mother, her child and the alleged father to submit to one or more genetic marker or DNA tests” (Family Ct Act § 532[a]…). However, “[n]o paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” … . “Where a party to a paternity proceeding raises an issue of equitable estoppel, that issue must be resolved before any biological testing is ordered” … . Matter of Tralisa R. v Max S., 2016 NY Slip Op 08236, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

FAMILY LAW (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/GENETIC MARKER TESTING (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (PATERNITY, GENETIC MARKER TESTING SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED BEFORE RESOLUTION OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO PRECLUDE DENIAL OF PATERNITY)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURTS, MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATTER IS ARBITRABLE, CITY HAD ISSUED NEW PROTOCOLS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, THE UNION FILED A GRIEVANCE ARGUING THE NEW PROTOCOLS MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF ARBITRATION, AN ARBITRATOR MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS MISNAMED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WAS TIMELY SERVED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH THE CORRECT NAME, ALTHOUGH SERVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED AND FILED NUNC PRO TUNC (SECOND DEPT).
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW WAS WRONG, THE RULING WAS CORRECT; THE ARRESTING OFFICER WHO LEARNED THE SUSPECT COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME, BUT SAID NOTHING, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR COSTS OF DEFENDING THE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT.
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S FAILURE TO UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TEN YEARS WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXCUSE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT TRAFFIC CONTROL.

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

ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR... MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT DID NOT WAIVE RIGHT TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE...