Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf of TIFFANY M.H., Petitioner-Respondent, v. GREG G., Respondent-Appellant.
Respondent failed to appear at a paternity proceeding and, upon his default, an order of filiation and support was entered. Almost six years later, petitioner sought an increase in respondent's child support obligation and respondent requested a genetic marker test to determine whether he was the father of the child. The parties stipulated to have the test performed, and the test results excluded respondent as the father of the child. Respondent thereafter moved, inter alia, to vacate the order of filiation and support on the ground that the mother had allegedly engaged in “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct” (CPLR 5015[a][3] ).
Family Court erred in denying the motion in its entirety. “The general rule with respect to opening defaults in civil actions is not to be applied as rigorously in actions or proceedings involving the custody, care and support of children” (Matter of Patricia J. v. Lionel S., 203 A.D.2d 979, 611 N.Y.S.2d 374). Despite knowing that another man could have fathered her child, the mother allowed a paternity petition to be filed on her behalf against respondent only. In addition, during the paternity hearing, the mother failed to reveal that, around the time of conception, she had sexual intercourse with another man in addition to respondent. Under those circumstances, we agree with respondent that his motion to vacate the order of filiation and support should have been granted. We further agree with respondent that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should not apply to preclude him from challenging the order of filiation and support. The child's best interests are of paramount concern in determining whether the doctrine applies (see, Matter of Louise P. v. Thomas R., 223 A.D.2d 592, 593, 636 N.Y.S.2d 408), and here respondent has never seen the child and has no relationship with her.
We therefore modify the order by granting respondent's motion in part and vacating the order of filiation and support, and we remit the matter to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)