BANK v. WHITE (2007)

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), dated December 21, 2004, as denied his cross motion for visitation with the defendant's children.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When the plaintiff, Kenneth Bank, and the defendant, Marney White, married in 1997, White had a daughter and a son, both from a prior marriage.   The parties lived together with the subject children until their separation in June 2003.   During the marriage, the plaintiff played a role in the daily upbringing of the subject children and served as a “father figure” in their lives.   When the parties separated, the plaintiff moved to California and the defendant remained in New York with the subject children.

By order to show cause dated October 6, 2004, the defendant requested pendente lite maintenance.   The plaintiff cross-moved for visitation with the subject children.   The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the cross motion for lack of standing.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's cross motion since he lacked standing to seek visitation with his wife's children (see Matter of Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651, 569 N.Y.S.2d 586, 572 N.E.2d 27;  Matter of Ronald FF. v. Cindy GG., 70 N.Y.2d 141, 517 N.Y.S.2d 932, 511 N.E.2d 75).   Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly determined that application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not warranted in this case.   Although equitable estoppel has been applied by this court to visitation disputes under compelling circumstances (cf. Jean Maby H. v. Joseph H., 246 A.D.2d 282, 676 N.Y.S.2d 677), we decline to apply it under the facts of this case (see Matter of Multari v. Sorrell, 287 A.D.2d 764, 766-767, 731 N.Y.S.2d 238;  Anonymous v. Anonymous, 20 A.D.3d 333, 797 N.Y.S.2d 754).