Merritt v. Allen, 99 A.D.3d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Merritt v. Allen, 99 A.D.3d 1006 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …the paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child at p. 1006 ✓
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Tralisa R. v. Max S. (nyappdiv, 2016-12-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tralisa R. v. Max S.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
However, “[n]o paternity test shall *728 be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of, inter alia, equitable estoppel” (Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Westchester County Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Pauline M.B. v. Arnoldo B.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
(Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 327 ; see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Julio J., 20 NY3d 995 , 997 [2013]; Matter of Luis Hugo O. v Paola O., 129 AD3d 976 [2d Dept 2015]), such that it is in the best interests of the child to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shawn H. v. Kimberly F.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the father’s challenge to the order of filiation (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Julio J., 20 NY3d 995, 997 [2013]; Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2012]; Matter of Smythe v Worley, 72 AD3d at 979 ; Matter of Jose F.R. v Reina C.A., 46 AD3d at 564-565 ), and “the evidence indicating that the parent-child relationship was somewhat limited did not preclude the application of [that] doctrine” (Matter of Smythe v Worley, 72 AD3d at 979 ; see Matter of Glen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shawn H. v. Kimberly F.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Under these circumstances, the Family Court properly invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the father’s challenge to the order of filiation (see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Julio J., 20 NY3d 995, 997 [2013]; Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2012]; Matter of Smythe v Worley, 72 AD3d at 979 ; Matter of Jose F.R. v Reina C.A., 46 AD3d at 564-565 ), and “the evidence indicating that the parent-child relationship was somewhat limited did not preclude the application of [that] doctrine” (Matter of Smythe v Worley, 72 AD3d at 979 ; see Matter of Glen…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karen G. v. Thomas G.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child” (Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2012]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of Westchester County Dept, of Social Servs. v Robert W.R., 25 AD3d 62, 70-71 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Karen G. v. Thomas G.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child” (Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1006-1007 [2012]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of Westchester County Dept, of Social Servs. v Robert W.R., 25 AD3d 62, 70-71 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andre Asim M. v. Madeline N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record demonstrates that, after the child was born in 2005, appellant held himself out to be the father of the child to his family and coworkers, permitted the child to call him “daddy,” provided the mother with support for the child, and placed the child on his medical insurance until January 2009, when he ceased interacting with the child based on his belief he was not the biological father (see Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of Griffin v Marshall, 294 AD2d 438, 439 [2d Dept 2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andre Asim M. v. Madeline N.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
The record demonstrates that, after the child was born in 2005, appellant held himself out to be the father of the child to his family and coworkers, permitted the child to call him “daddy,” provided the mother with support for the child, and placed the child on his medical insurance until January 2009, when he ceased interacting with the child based on his belief he was not the biological father (see Matter of Merritt v Allen, 99 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of Griffin v Marshall, 294 AD2d 438, 439 [2d Dept 2002]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jonathan H. Merritt, Sr.
v.
Bethann Allen, (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Jonathan H. Merritt, Sr. v. Bethann Allen, (Proceeding No. 2.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 24, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 1006
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

Pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 418 (a) and 532 (a), no paternity test shall be ordered upon a written finding by the court that it is not in the best interests of the child on the basis[*1007] of, inter alia, equitable estoppel. 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 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter of Seth P. v Margaret D., 90 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2011]). Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the best interests of the child support the Family Court’s determination to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel in granting the mother’s motion to dismiss his petition to set aside an acknowledgment of paternity dated December 22, 2000, direct a paternity test, and discontinue his payment of child support. Since August 2006, upon the petitioner’s consent, he has been paying support for the child. The petitioner has sought and been granted visitation with the child, and the child understands the petitioner to be his father (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 328).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly granted the mother’s motion to dismiss the petition to set aside the acknowledgment of paternity, direct a paternity test, and discontinue the payment of child support, and properly dismissed the petition to modify a prior order of child support dated January 25, 2008, vacated an order of the same court dated February 7, 2011, and directed that the petitioner’s child support payments held in escrow be released to the mother. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.