Kump v. Basnight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kump v. Basnight

297 A.D.2d 639, 746 N.Y.2d 904, 746 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8285

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 9, 2002·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In his motion to dismiss the mother’s paternity petition, the appellant sought to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to support his claim that it would be inequitable to him and contrary to the best interests of the child to allow the mother to assert a claim of paternity 12 years after the child was born. The appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition was properly denied. “The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel [in paternity cases] has been, and continues to be, the best interest of the child” (Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285; see Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). The appellant failed to demonstrate how a legal declaration of paternity will cause the child to suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of his family image, or other harm to his physical or emotional well-being (see Matter of Carol S. v Gerard D., 276 AD2d 377).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of this determination. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In his motion to dismiss the mother’s paternity petition, the appellant sought to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to support his claim that it would be inequitable to him and contrary to the best interests of the child to allow the mother to assert a claim of paternity 12 years after the child was born. The appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition was properly denied. “The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel [in paternity cases] has been, and continues to be, the best interest of the child” (Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285; see Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). The appellant failed to demonstrate how a legal declaration of paternity will cause the child to suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of his family image, or other harm to his physical or emotional well-being (see Matter of Carol S. v Gerard D., 276 AD2d 377).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of this determination. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Kump v. Basnight, 297 A.D.2d 639, 746 N.Y.2d 904, 746 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

297 A.D.2d 639 (Kump v. Basnight) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related