Merritt v. Allen

99 A.D.3d 1006, 953 N.Y.2d 128
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 99 A.D.3d 1006 (Merritt v. Allen) 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
Merritt v. Allen, 99 A.D.3d 1006, 953 N.Y.2d 128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

Pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 418 (a) and 532 (a), no paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis [1007]*1007of, inter alia, equitable estoppel. The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of Seth P. v Margaret D., 90 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2011]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the best interests of the child support the Family Court’s determination to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel in granting the mother’s motion to dismiss his petition to set aside an acknowledgment of paternity dated December 22, 2000, direct a paternity test, and discontinue his payment of child support. Since August 2006, upon the petitioner’s consent, he has been paying support for the child. The petitioner has sought and been granted visitation with the child, and the child understands the petitioner to be his father (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 328).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the mother’s motion to dismiss the petition to set aside the acknowledgment of paternity, direct a paternity test, and discontinue the payment of child support, and properly dismissed the petition to modify a prior order of child support dated January 25, 2008, vacated an order of the same court dated February 7, 2011, and directed that the petitioner’s child support payments held in escrow be released to the mother. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Rosa Y. A. P. v. Jose B. P. T.
2020 NY Slip Op 3115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of George C.S. v. Kerry-Ann B.
2018 NY Slip Op 6917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Tralisa R. v. Max S.
2016 NY Slip Op 8236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Westchester County Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Pauline M.B. v. Arnoldo B.
130 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Shawn H. v. Kimberly F.
115 A.D.3d 744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Karen G. v. Thomas G.
109 A.D.3d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Andre Asim M. v. Madeline N.
103 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A.D.3d 1006, 953 N.Y.2d 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-allen-nyappdiv-2012.