Edward T. v. Fifi N.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edward T. v. Fifi N.

184 A.D.2d 278

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 A.D.2d 278 (Edward T. v. Fifi N.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward T. v. Fifi N., 184 A.D.2d 278 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce M. Kaplan, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which denied intervenor-appellant’s motion for blood test to determine paternity, unanimously affirmed, without costs. By order entered March 24, 1992, this court granted appellant leave to appeal.

After a hearing in Family Court at which both petitioner and respondent appeared and stated petitioner was the subject child’s father, an order of filiation was entered in his favor. Thereafter, the court refused respondent’s request to vacate the order of filiation and no appeal was taken. Appellant, the maternal grandmother and foster mother, has no standing to challenge this determination.

As a foster parent granted intervenor status, appellant’s status as a party entitles her to participate only in those aspects of the hearing pertaining to custody with respect to the best interests of the child. Clearly, the best interests of the child require that custody remain with the petitioner father. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, New York County (Bruce M. Kaplan, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which denied intervenor-appellant’s motion for blood test to determine paternity, unanimously affirmed, without costs. By order entered March 24, 1992, this court granted appellant leave to appeal.

After a hearing in Family Court at which both petitioner and respondent appeared and stated petitioner was the subject child’s father, an order of filiation was entered in his favor. Thereafter, the court refused respondent’s request to vacate the order of filiation and no appeal was taken. Appellant, the maternal grandmother and foster mother, has no standing to challenge this determination.

As a foster parent granted intervenor status, appellant’s status as a party entitles her to participate only in those aspects of the hearing pertaining to custody with respect to the best interests of the child. Clearly, the best interests of the child require that custody remain with the petitioner father. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-t-v-fifi-n-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack