JAMES JEROME v. MARY ELIZABETH (2006)

 Petitioner, an inmate serving a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment, commenced this proceeding seeking to enforce a visitation order entered on the consent of the parties.   During the course of the proceeding, it was brought to the attention of Family Court that there were two orders of filiation regarding the child, naming petitioner and another man as the father.   Genetic testing thereafter excluded petitioner as the father, and we conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition based upon the results of the genetic testing (see Matter of Multari v. Sorrell, 287 A.D.2d 764, 765-766, 731 N.Y.S.2d 238;  Matter of Cindy P. v. Danny P., 206 A.D.2d 615, 616, 614 N.Y.S.2d 479, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 808, 621 N.Y.S.2d 517, 645 N.E.2d 1217).   Petitioner stipulated to that testing and thus waived his present contention that the court erred in directing it (see generally Wittman v. Wittman, 302 A.D.2d 914, 753 N.Y.S.2d 913).   Finally, the Law Guardian elected not to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see generally Hammack v. Hammack, 291 A.D.2d 718, 719, 737 N.Y.S.2d 702), and we reject the further contention of petitioner that the court erred in determining that he was not entitled to invoke that doctrine in these circumstances (see Multari, 287 A.D.2d 764, 731 N.Y.S.2d 238).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: