You are here: / / PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE...
, ,

PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner, who is not related to the child, did not have standing by equitable estoppel to seek custody of or visitation with the child. The evidence did not demonstrate the relationship between petitioner and the child rose to the level of parenthood:

While the record contains evidence suggesting that petitioner and the child had an ongoing relationship throughout the child’s formative years, the record does not support the idea that disrupting such a relationship would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Petitioner never lived with the child or assumed any financial responsibilities for her. Although petitioner credibly testified that the child visited her frequently during the first three years of the child’s life, there was no evidence that petitioner consistently cared for the child or that the child looked upon petitioner as a parental figure.

… [T]here was evidence that the child did not recognize or view petitioner as parental figure … . From the child’s perspective, the only other parent she knew, aside from respondent, the child’s biological mother, was the mother’s companion, whom she regarded as her father and with whom she reported having a close, bonded relationship with, undercutting petitioner’s equitable estoppel claim … . Matter of April B. v Relisha H., 2025 NY Slip Op 00782, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to bring a custody petition by equitable estoppel, the petitioner must demonstrate a relationship with the child which rises to the level of parenthood, not the case here.

 

You might also like
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S DATASHEET IS AN ATTORNEY-WORK-PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO FOIL DISCLOSURE; BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAIL IN THE FOIL PROCEEDINGS, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
THREATENING TO CALL SOMEONE TO HAVE VICTIM BEATEN UP MET THE THREAT OF IMMEDIATE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY.
THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
​ DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED VIRTUALLY AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; RESENTENCING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIE OFF LANYARD WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, ABSENCE OF A GUARDRAIL ON THE SCAFFOLD REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

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

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW ARGUMENT RAISED FIRST IN REPLY; THE... HERE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WHICH...