Stephen N. v. Amanda O.
| Decision Date | 02 June 2016 |
| Citation | 140 A.D.3d 1223,33 N.Y.S.3d 496,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04265 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STEPHEN N., Appellant, v. AMANDA O. et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
140 A.D.3d 1223
33 N.Y.S.3d 496
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04265
In the Matter of STEPHEN N., Appellant,
v.
AMANDA O. et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 2, 2016.
Stephen N., Malone, appellant pro se.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., ROSE, LYNCH, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.
LYNCH, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Kushner, J.), entered November 26, 2014, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 5, to adjudicate petitioner as the father of a child born to respondent Amanda O.
In 2003, while respondent Amanda O. (hereinafter the mother) was in a relationship with respondent William P., she engaged in sexual intercourse with petitioner. In late 2003, the mother gave birth to a daughter and William P. signed an acknowledgment of paternity, thus establishing the paternity and liability for support of the child (see Family Ct. Act § 516–a ). Nearly three years later, petitioner and the mother met again and, upon seeing the child, petitioner believed that there was a resemblance between them. A subsequent DNA test revealed that he was the child's biological father. In August 2008, petitioner filed a petition for paternity. Family Court
(Duggan, J.) dismissed the petition, finding that petitioner did not have grounds to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 516–a. In October 2014, petitioner filed a second paternity petition. The Support Magistrate dismissed the petition based on res judicata, and Family Court (Kushner, J.) denied petitioner's objections, finding
that the doctrine of res judicata applied because “ none of the facts as determined by [Family Court] in 2008 [had] changed.” Petitioner now appeals.
A petitioner who did not sign an acknowledgment of paternity does not have standing to challenge paternity pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 516–a (see Matter of Marquis B. v. Rason B., 94 A.D.3d 883, 883, 941 N.Y.S.2d 857 [2012], lv. dismissed 19 N.Y.3d 991, 951 N.Y.S.2d 106, 975 N.E.2d 487 [2012] ). Where, as here, a petitioner claims to be the father, however, he will have standing to challenge paternity pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 522 (see id.; Matter of Dwayne J.B. v. Santos H., 89 A.D.3d 838, 838, 932 N.Y.S.2d 378 [2011] ). The doctrine of equitable estoppel is an available defense in a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 522 (see Matter of Edward WW. v. Diana XX., 79 A.D.3d 1181, 1182, 913 N.Y.S.2d 785 [2010] ; Matter of Kristen D. v. Stephen D., 280 A.D.2d 717, 719, 719 N.Y.S.2d 771 [2001] ). Accordingly, “[e]stoppel may preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christopher YY. v. Jessica ZZ.
...[820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610] [emphasis added]; see Matter of Carlos O. v. Maria G. , 149 A.D.3d at 946 ; Matter of Stephen N. v. Amanda O. , 140 A.D.3d 1223, 1224 [2016]; Matter of Richard W. v. Roberta Y. , 240 A.D.2d at 814 ).As relevant here, the doctrine "is a defense in a paterni......
-
Onorina C.T. v. Ricardo R.E.
..., 137 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 28 N.Y.S.3d 485 [internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citations omitted]; see Matter of Stephen N. v. Amanda O. , 140 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 33 N.Y.S.3d 496 ; see also Family Ct. Act § 522 ). It is significant that "courts impose equitable estoppel to protect the sta......
-
Michael S. v. Sultana R., 5704
...had standing under Family Court Act § 522 to attack it, as he had commenced a paternity proceeding (see Matter of Stephen N. v. Amanda O., 140 A.D.3d 1223, 33 N.Y.S.3d 496 [3d Dept. 2016] ). The acknowledgment of paternity was vacated (albeit not simultaneously with the issuance of the orde......
- In re Bogart