Haynes v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haynes v. Martin

281 A.D.2d 480, 721 N.Y.S.2d 785, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2381

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 480 (Haynes v. Martin) 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

Haynes v. Martin, 281 A.D.2d 480, 721 N.Y.S.2d 785, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2381 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated December 1, 1999, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition. The petitioner’s notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated October 28, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court correctly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the petitioner, as any other determination would not have served the child’s best interest (see, Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812; Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U., 226 AD2d 803; David L. v Cindy Pearl L., 208 AD2d 502; Matter of James BB. v Debora AA., 202 AD2d 852, 853). The petitioner brought this paternity proceeding when the subject child was 14 years old. Moreover, the child had always regarded the petitioner’s husband as his father, and had never met the respondent before the petition was filed. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petitioner’s paternity petition was proper.

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated December 1, 1999, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition. The petitioner’s notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated October 28, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Family Court correctly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the petitioner, as any other determination would not have served the child’s best interest (see, Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812; Matter of Glenn T. v Donna U., 226 AD2d 803; David L. v Cindy Pearl L., 208 AD2d 502; Matter of James BB. v Debora AA., 202 AD2d 852, 853). The petitioner brought this paternity proceeding when the subject child was 14 years old. Moreover, the child had always regarded the petitioner’s husband as his father, and had never met the respondent before the petition was filed. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petitioner’s paternity petition was proper.

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 480, 721 N.Y.S.2d 785, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-martin-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack