Troy VG v. Tysha M. McG.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Troy VG v. Tysha M. McG.

79 A.D.3d 606, 913 N.Y.S.2d 217

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 606 (Troy VG v. Tysha M. McG.) 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

Troy VG v. Tysha M. McG., 79 A.D.3d 606, 913 N.Y.S.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about July 8, 2009, which denied the petition insofar as it sought to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity of the child, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new hearing before a different judge.

Petitioner testified, and it appears to be undisputed, that when the child was approximately three years old, the child would cry during visits with petitioner and say that petitioner was not his father. According to petitioner, his relationship with the child appeared to be “going backward” and the child indicated he did not want to be with petitioner. Under all the [607]*607relevant circumstances, Family Court erred in determining that the question of equitable estoppel could be resolved without a psychiatric evaluation of the parties and the child (Matter of Eugene F.G. v Darla D., 261 AD2d 958, 959 [1999]). Moreover, Family Court should not have precluded cross-examination of respondent mother with respect to the child’s living situation at the time of the hearing, particularly as the question of whether another person was acting as a father clearly is relevant to the ultimate issue of the best interests of the child (Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about July 8, 2009, which denied the petition insofar as it sought to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity of the child, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a new hearing before a different judge.

Petitioner testified, and it appears to be undisputed, that when the child was approximately three years old, the child would cry during visits with petitioner and say that petitioner was not his father. According to petitioner, his relationship with the child appeared to be “going backward” and the child indicated he did not want to be with petitioner. Under all the [607]*607relevant circumstances, Family Court erred in determining that the question of equitable estoppel could be resolved without a psychiatric evaluation of the parties and the child (Matter of Eugene F.G. v Darla D., 261 AD2d 958, 959 [1999]). Moreover, Family Court should not have precluded cross-examination of respondent mother with respect to the child’s living situation at the time of the hearing, particularly as the question of whether another person was acting as a father clearly is relevant to the ultimate issue of the best interests of the child (Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Andrias, Nardelli, McGuire and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 606, 913 N.Y.S.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troy-vg-v-tysha-m-mcg-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack