You are here: / / ONCE PETITIONER’S PATERNITY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GENETIC TESTING...

ONCE PETITIONER’S PATERNITY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY GENETIC TESTING FAMILY COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY (AOP) PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BY MOTHER’S BOYFRIEND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that once petitioner had been established to be the father of the child by court-ordered genetic testing Family Court had the power to vacate mother’s boyfriend’s acknowledgment of paternity (AOP):

… [G]iven the continued existence of the AOP, we acknowledge respondents’ concern that the order of filiation might have effectively created an impermissible three-parent arrangement for the subject child … . The court … had the power to vacate the AOP to address that concern … , and we conclude that the AOP should be vacated in order to eliminate any question that petitioner is the child’s only legal father. We therefore modify the order by granting petitioner’s motion in its entirety and vacating the AOP. Matter of Ryan M. E. v Shelby S., 2021 NY Slip Op 00717, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

You might also like
Probable Cause to Search Vehicle for a Weapon After Defendant’s Arrest Provided by Identified Citizen Informant
Injury Caused by Movement and Toppling of a Dry Wall Cart Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE OF A RECALL AND EVIDENCE OF CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ MOTORCYCLE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ DUTY TO WARN.
Court’s Failure to Inquire to Ensure Guilty Plea Was Knowing and Voluntary Required Vacation of the Plea (In the Absence of Preservation)
National Labor Relations Board Had First Crack at Collective Bargaining Agreement Matter Under Preemption Doctrine
PURSUANT TO THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION,” THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT COMPLAINT BY A PRIEST AGAINST THE DIOCESE OF BUFFALO WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
IF POSSIBLE, A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY AT THE TIME HE ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA, IF A HEARING CANNOT BE HELD THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED.

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 COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM FINDING THAT CLAIMANT’S... WHETHER THE HOUSE FIRE WAS DELIBERATELY SET WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ESSENTIAL...