IN RE: JENNINE E. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Derrick W.T. appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gregory L. Gliedman, J.), dated May 20, 2025, and (2) an order of filiation of the same court dated May 21, 2025.  The order dated May 20, 2025, after a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel, denied the application of Derrick W.T. for genetic marker testing.  The order of filiation adjudicated Derrick W.T. to be the father of the subject child.

ORDERED that the notices of appeal from the order dated May 20, 2025, and the order of filiation are deemed to be applications for leave to appeal from those orders, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act § 1112[a] );  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated May 20, 2025, and the order of filiation are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In May 2021, the petitioner mother commenced this paternity/support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, inter alia, to adjudicate Derrick W.T. (hereinafter the appellant) to be the father of the subject child, who was born in 2010.  No father was named on the birth certificate, and the mother was never married.  The appellant denied paternity and made an application for genetic marker testing.  Thereafter, the Family Court conducted a hearing to determine if equitable estoppel should preclude the genetic marker testing.  Both parties were represented by counsel, and the attorney for the child was present.  The court also conducted an in camera interview with the child.

In an order dated May 20, 2025, the Family Court, after the hearing, denied the appellant's application for genetic marker testing.  In an order of filiation dated May 21, 2025, the court adjudicated the appellant to be the father of the child.  These appeals ensued.

While the testimony of the parties and the child showed the contact between the appellant and the child to be somewhat minimal, the credible testimony demonstrated that the child considered the appellant to be her father and that the appellant held himself out to be the child's father.  Based on the credible testimony adduced at the hearing, the best interests of the child support the Family Court's application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in determining that the appellant was the father of the child, and in denying his application for genetic marker testing (see Matter of Shaundell M. v. Trevor C., 167 AD3d 615, 616;  Matter of Wanda M. v. Lawrence T., 80 AD3d 765, 766;  Matter of Smythe v. Worley, 72 AD3d 977, 979).

The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., FORD, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.