You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PATERNITY BY ESTOPPEL BEFORE ORDERING...

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PATERNITY BY ESTOPPEL BEFORE ORDERING TEST FOR BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY.

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court and ordering further proceedings before a different judge, reiterated that a court should consider paternity by estoppel before ordering a test for biological parternity. Here, Gerald, the acknowledged father of the child and the custodial parent of the child, was not a named party in the proceedings (a paternity petition brought by the mother naming another party, Shane, as the father). Shane appeared and stated he wanted nothing to do with child. Yet the court ordered a paternity test without making Gerald a party and without notifying him:

“Family Court should consider paternity by estoppel before it decides whether to test for biological paternity” … . That did not occur here because Gerald was not a named party in the paternity proceeding and did not otherwise appear when the court ordered Shane to submit to a genetic marker test, so he did not have the opportunity to raise the doctrine of estoppel. The court should have joined Gerald in that proceeding or otherwise notified him before it ordered the test … . After all, Gerald was not only the acknowledged father of the child, but was the custodial parent of the child, and the court was well aware of those facts inasmuch as it had issued the custody orders. The court made it clear in its decision, however, that even if Gerald had made a timely objection and raised the defense earlier, the court nevertheless would have ordered the test because the child was young and “the truth is important.” That is contrary to both the plain language of the statute and statements of law by the Court of Appeals. Matter of Jennifer L. v Gerald S., 2016 NY Slip Op 08730, 4th Dept 12-23-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PATERNITY BY ESTOPPEL BEFORE ORDERING TEST FOR BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY)/PATERNITY (FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PATERNITY BY ESTOPPEL BEFORE ORDERING TEST FOR BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY)

You might also like
CPL 330.30 MOTION ALLEGING JUROR MISCONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS, I.E. CONDUCTING A REENACTMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
A CHILD IN A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY THE ATTORNEY-FOR-THE-CHILD (AFC), WHICH INCLUDES ADVOCATING THE CHILD’S POSITION EVEN IF THE AFC DISAGREES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE OBSTRUCTION OF PASSAGEWAYS; IT ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STORED AND SECURED (AND FALLS); PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT SHOULD REDACT FROM THE PRESENTENCE REPORT ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE HAD TO “MANIPULATE” THE CHECKS TO DETERMINE THEY WERE FORGED; THEREFORE THE “PLAIN VIEW” EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF AND NOT ENSURING A SAFE RETURN HOME, THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.

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

COURT ERRED IN CLASSIFYING HOUSE PURCHASED BEFORE MARRIAGE AS MARITAL PROPERTY,... HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1),...