From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Fidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 2010
71 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

March 4, 2010.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about June 14, 2007, which granted the motion of respondent Wayne N. and dismissed the petition of Fidel A. for a declaration of paternity of the subject child on equitable estoppel grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


Despite the results of DNA tests establishing that petitioner is the subject child's biological father, the Family Court properly found, on the basis of equitable estoppel, that it was not in the best interests of the child for petitioner to assert his paternity ( see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 327; Terrence M. v Gale C., 193 AD2d 437, 437, lv denied 82 NY2d 661). The evidence showed that it would be detrimental to the child's interests to disrupt her close relationship with respondent Wayne N., whom she knows as her father and whose actions established a close parental relationship with her ( see e.g. Matter of Enrique G. v Lisbet E., 2 AD3d 288).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contention and find it unavailing.

[Prior Case History: 16 Misc 3d 1104(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51257(U).]


Summaries of

In re Fidel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 2010
71 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Fidel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FIDEL A., Appellant, v. SHARON N., Respondent, and WAYNE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 4, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
894 N.Y.S.2d 753

Citing Cases

Joseph O. v. Danielle B.

; see Matter of Felix O. v. Janette M., 89 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 934 N.Y.S.2d 424 ; Matter of Carl Henry P. v.…

John S. v. Imari W.

The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to equitably estop petitioner…