Ocasio v. Ocasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ocasio v. Ocasio

276 A.D.2d 680, 716 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10675

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 23, 2000·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 5, 1982, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated September 28,1999, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to terminate his child support obligation and to modify the divorce judgment by declaring that he is not the father of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendant was equitably estopped from challenging paternity to avoid his support obligation (see, Brian B. v Dionne B., 267 AD2d 188; [681] Matter of Weiller v Weiller, 267 AD2d 390; John R. v Lynn R., 260 AD2d 459; Fung v Fung, 238 AD2d 375). The court applied the equitable estoppel doctrine after conducting a hearing and concluding that it was in the child’s best interest to deny the defendant’s motion (see, Matter of Alberto T. v Tammy D., 274 AD2d 587; Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 5, 1982, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated September 28,1999, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to terminate his child support obligation and to modify the divorce judgment by declaring that he is not the father of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendant was equitably estopped from challenging paternity to avoid his support obligation (see, Brian B. v Dionne B., 267 AD2d 188; [681] Matter of Weiller v Weiller, 267 AD2d 390; John R. v Lynn R., 260 AD2d 459; Fung v Fung, 238 AD2d 375). The court applied the equitable estoppel doctrine after conducting a hearing and concluding that it was in the child’s best interest to deny the defendant’s motion (see, Matter of Alberto T. v Tammy D., 274 AD2d 587; Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6). Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Ocasio v. Ocasio, 276 A.D.2d 680, 716 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

276 A.D.2d 680 (Ocasio v. Ocasio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related