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
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF A LEFT TURN TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS BASED ON A STUDY FINDING THE SIGNAL WAS NOT WARRANTED; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY IN THIS HIGHWAY-PLANNING ACTION BY A PEDESTRIAN WHO WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE MAKING A LEFT TURN (SECOND DEPT).
In Order for a Municipality to Be Liable for the Creation of a Dangerous Condition, the Dangerous Condition Must Result Immediately from the Negligent Act—Here the Allegation the Dangerous Condition Developed Over a Period of Years Was Not Sufficient
BANK’S PROOF OF DEFAULT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT STRUCK THE REAR OF PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT HIS FOOT SLIPPED OFF THE BRAKE PEDAL DID NOT PRESENT A NONEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OR TRIGGER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

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...