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.
IN RE: Proceeding, etc., ENRIQUE G., Petitioner-Respondent, v. LISBET E., Respondent-Appellant. Kristin Kimmel, Law Guardian for the Child.
Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about December 15, 1999, which denied respondent mother's motion to vacate an order of filiation adjudging petitioner to be the father of Crystal G., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly denied respondent's motion to vacate the order of filiation granted upon her default in appearing on the return date for the paternity petition. Respondent's explanations for her absence from the proceedings were unsubstantiated and, as such, properly rejected by the court (see Matter of Derrick T., 261 A.D.2d 108, 109, 687 N.Y.S.2d 260). Moreover, even if respondent had a valid excuse for her absence, she provided no explanation for her failure to contact the court respecting her unavailability (see Matter of Ashley Marie M., 287 A.D.2d 333, 334, 731 N.Y.S.2d 166).
Even if the merits were to be reached, respondent would, notwithstanding blood tests excluding petitioner as the subject child's biological father, be equitably estopped from challenging petitioner's assertion of paternity. The evidence showed that it would be detrimental to the interests of the child, six years of age at the time of the Family Court proceedings, to countenance the disruption of her close relationship with petitioner, whom she has always known and loved as her father (see Matter of Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812, 813-815, 658 N.Y.S.2d 506, leave denied, 90 N.Y.2d 809, 664 N.Y.S.2d 271, 686 N.E.2d 1366; Matter of Ettore I. v. Angela D., 127 A.D.2d 6, 12, 513 N.Y.S.2d 733).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 18, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)