Opinion
Argued February 13, 2001.
March 12, 2001.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Porzio, J.), dated December 1, 1999, which, after a fact-finding hearing, dismissed the petition. The petitioner's notice of appeal from a decision of the same court dated October 28, 1999, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order.
Mark W. Brandys, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Barbara H. Dildine, Brooklyn, N.Y., Law Guardian for the child.
Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Family Court correctly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the petitioner, as any other determination would not have served the child's best interest (see, Matter of Richard W. v. Roberta Y., 240 A.D.2d 812; Matter of Glenn T. v. Donna U., 226 A.D.2d 803; David L. v. Cindy Pearl L., 208 A.D.2d 502; Matter of James BB. v. Debora AA., 202 A.D.2d 852, 853). The petitioner brought this paternity proceeding when the subject child was 14 years old. Moreover, the child had always regarded the petitioner's husband as his father, and had never met the respondent before the petition was filed. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petitioner's paternity petition was proper.
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.