You are here: / / DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF...

DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined defendant mother was judicially estopped from arguing plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. Defendant had previously successfully obtain an order requiring plaintiff to pay child support:

The defendant was judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff was not a parent for the purpose of visitation. First, by asserting in her child support petition that the plaintiff was chargeable with support for the subject child, the plaintiff assumed the position before the Family Court that the plaintiff was the subject child’s parent, as it is parents who are chargeable with the support of their children (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]). Next, based on her assertion that the plaintiff was chargeable with the subject child’s support, the defendant successfully obtained an order compelling the plaintiff to pay child support for the subject child … . Under this order, the plaintiff was required to pay child support for his children, including the subject child. Furthermore, the record does not support the court’s finding that the defendant unequivocally waived the right to child support. Therefore, the defendant is judicially estopped from arguing that the plaintiff is not a parent for the purpose of visitation … . Paese v Paese, 2016 NY Slip Op 07304, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

FAMILY LAW (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/VISITATION (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/CHILD SUPPORT (DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING DEFENDANT WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).
CAVEAT EMPTOR (BUYER BEWARE) DOES NOT APPLY TO JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALES; HERE THE BANK DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF A SENIOR MORTGAGE; SALE SET ASIDE AND DOWN PAYMENT RETURNED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRS HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED, THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, IF THE DEFENSE IS NOT RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS IT IS WAIVED, JUDGE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT).
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).
Application for Area Variance Properly Denied—Analytical Criteria Described

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

DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH, MATTER REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION... WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL PARENTING TIME, THE PARENT WITH THE HIGHER INCOME SHOULD...