IN RE: WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Davidson C.L. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Melissa A. Loehr, J.), dated October 23, 2024.  The order, after a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel, determined that Davidson C.L. was equitably estopped from obtaining a court-ordered genetic marker test, denied Davidson C. L.'s application for a genetic marker test, and directed the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating Davidson C.L. to be the father of the subject child.

ORDERED that the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act § 1112[a] );  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In 2023, the petitioner, on behalf of the mother, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, inter alia, to adjudicate the appellant to be the father of the subject child, who was born in October 2008.  The appellant made an application for a genetic marker test.  In an order dated October 23, 2024, after a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel, the Family Court determined that the appellant was equitably estopped from obtaining a court-ordered genetic marker test, denied his application for that test, and directed the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating the appellant to be the father of the child.

Family Court Act § 532(a) provides, inter alia, that no genetic marker or DNA tests to determine paternity shall be ordered where the Family Court has made a written finding that such testing is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of equitable estoppel (see Matter of Walter G. v. Isabel L.A., 179 A.D.3d 680, 681, 118 N.Y.S.3d 42;  Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Arnoldo B., 130 A.D.3d 743, 744, 14 N.Y.S.3d 71).  The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d 320, 326, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610;  Matter of Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dominick C., 162 A.D.3d 1053, 1054, 81 N.Y.S.3d 66).

Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the best interests of the child support the Family Court's application, after the hearing, of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in denying the appellant's application for a genetic marker test and directing the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating him to be the father of the child (see Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 7 N.Y.3d at 328, 820 N.Y.S.2d 199, 853 N.E.2d 610;  Matter of Shaundell M. v. Trevor C., 167 A.D.3d 615, 616, 89 N.Y.S.3d 330).  Issues of credibility were for the court to resolve, and there is no basis to disturb its determination to credit the testimony of the child's mother and reject the appellant's testimony (see Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Llevon A.P., 188 A.D.3d 1080, 1081, 132 N.Y.S.3d 694;  Matter of Shaundell M. v. Trevor C., 167 A.D.3d at 616, 89 N.Y.S.3d 330).

DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.