From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Everlyn v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1989
155 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 13, 1989

Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Ryan, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order taken as of right is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies as of right from an order of filiation entered in a proceeding in which an order of support is requested (Family Ct Act § 1112; Matter of Jane PP. v Paul QQ., 64 N.Y.2d 15; Matter of Harstein v Mike S., 107 A.D.2d 684); and it is further,

Ordered that on the court's own motion, the applicant's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, the application is referred to Justice Kooper, and leave to appeal is granted by Justice Kooper (see, Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]); and it is further,

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

As we have previously observed, "[i]n a paternity proceeding, the findings of a hearing court are entitled to great weight and, generally, should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence" (Matter of Shirley R. v Ricardo B., 144 A.D.2d 472, 473; see, Matter of Bernadette C. v Jossival St. V., 128 A.D.2d 774). The record reveals that the results of human leucocyte antigen test indicated a 99.96% probability of the appellant's paternity. The foregoing, together with the testimony of the child's mother, which the hearing court credited, established the appellant's paternity by clear and convincing evidence.

The Family Court properly declined to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar the petitioner's application for an order of filiation, which application, we note, may be made pursuant to statute at any time before the child in question reaches the age of 21 years (see, Family Ct Act § 517). Although courts have invoked the doctrine of estoppel in paternity cases "to protect innocent children from an irreparable loss of legal rights" (Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 A.D.2d 6, 16; see, Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 63 N.Y.2d 859), no such circumstances are presented in this case. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Everlyn v. Charles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1989
155 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Matter of Everlyn v. Charles

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EVERLYN T., Respondent, v. WILLIS CHARLES T., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 403

Citing Cases

Matter of Marcella v. Karl

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies…

Matter of Karen v. Frederic

Appeal from the Family Court, Queens County (De Phillips, J.). Ordered that the appeal from the order taken…