Matter of Renarta La-narda S. v. Bevin M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Renarta La-narda S. v. Bevin M.

2017 NY Slip Op 6627, 153 A.D.3d 1185, 60 N.Y.S.3d 671

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2017

Docket4509

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6627 (Matter of Renarta La-narda S. v. Bevin M.) 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

Matter of Renarta La-narda S. v. Bevin M., 2017 NY Slip Op 6627, 153 A.D.3d 1185, 60 N.Y.S.3d 671 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshanksy, J.), entered on or about December 15, 2016, which, following a hearing, adjudged respondent to be the father of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child’s best interests to equitably estop respondent from denying paternity (Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326-327 [2006]; Family Ct Act § 418 [a]). While respondent claimed to have harbored some doubts about whether he was the father shortly after the child’s birth in 2009 and again three years later when the mother informed him that the child was not his, he continued to hold himself out to be the father of the child, provided him with support and gave him gifts, and continued to live with the family, even marrying the mother in the interim (id.; Matter of Jesus R.C. v Karen J.O., 126 AD3d 445, 445-446 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 906 [2015]). Even after respondent left the family home at the end of 2014 he has maintained at least some contact with the child, who believes respondent to be his father. These facts amply support the court’s equitable estoppel finding (id.).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Emily M. Olshanksy, J.), entered on or about December 15, 2016, which, following a hearing, adjudged respondent to be the father of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the child’s best interests to equitably estop respondent from denying paternity (Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326-327 [2006]; Family Ct Act § 418 [a]). While respondent claimed to have harbored some doubts about whether he was the father shortly after the child’s birth in 2009 and again three years later when the mother informed him that the child was not his, he continued to hold himself out to be the father of the child, provided him with support and gave him gifts, and continued to live with the family, even marrying the mother in the interim (id.; Matter of Jesus R.C. v Karen J.O., 126 AD3d 445, 445-446 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 906 [2015]). Even after respondent left the family home at the end of 2014 he has maintained at least some contact with the child, who believes respondent to be his father. These facts amply support the court’s equitable estoppel finding (id.).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6627, 153 A.D.3d 1185, 60 N.Y.S.3d 671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-renarta-la-narda-s-v-bevin-m-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack