Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1890–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baldwin Yacht Basin, Inc. v. Board of Assessorsgreen2 sentences2017Although a challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity may be made only by a signatory, “[a] prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Thomas T [Luba R.], 121 AD3d 800, 800 [2d Dept 2014], citing Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838, 838 [2d Dept 2011]; Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [iv]; Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Tyrone G. v Fifi N., 189 AD2d 8, 14 [1st Dept 1993]). 2017Respondent’s failure to vacate the existing acknowledgment of paternity does not necessitate automatic dismissal of petitioner’s paternity petition because the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity “does not serve as an insuperable bar” to petitioner’s claim of paternity (see Thomas T., 121 AD3d at 800 ; Dwayne J.B., 89 AD3d 838 ; Antony S.N.T., 123 AD3d 835 ; Tyrone G., 189 AD2d 8 ). | 4 | 5 |
Tyrone G. v. Fifi N.green2 sentences2017Although a challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity may be made only by a signatory, “[a] prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Thomas T [Luba R.], 121 AD3d 800, 800 [2d Dept 2014], citing Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838, 838 [2d Dept 2011]; Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [iv]; Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Tyrone G. v Fifi N., 189 AD2d 8, 14 [1st Dept 1993]). 2017Respondent’s failure to vacate the existing acknowledgment of paternity does not necessitate automatic dismissal of petitioner’s paternity petition because the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity “does not serve as an insuperable bar” to petitioner’s claim of paternity (see Thomas T., 121 AD3d at 800 ; Dwayne J.B., 89 AD3d 838 ; Antony S.N.T., 123 AD3d 835 ; Tyrone G., 189 AD2d 8 ). | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Antony S.N.T. v. Rosemarie B.T.green2 sentences2017Although a challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity may be made only by a signatory, “[a] prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Thomas T [Luba R.], 121 AD3d 800, 800 [2d Dept 2014], citing Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838, 838 [2d Dept 2011]; Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [iv]; Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Tyrone G. v Fifi N., 189 AD2d 8, 14 [1st Dept 1993]). 2017Respondent’s failure to vacate the existing acknowledgment of paternity does not necessitate automatic dismissal of petitioner’s paternity petition because the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity “does not serve as an insuperable bar” to petitioner’s claim of paternity (see Thomas T., 121 AD3d at 800 ; Dwayne J.B., 89 AD3d 838 ; Antony S.N.T., 123 AD3d 835 ; Tyrone G., 189 AD2d 8 ). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Thomas T. (Luba R.)green2 sentences2017Although a challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity may be made only by a signatory, “[a] prior acknowledgment of paternity made in accordance with Family Court Act § 516-a does not serve as an insuperable bar to a claim of paternity by one who is a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Thomas T [Luba R.], 121 AD3d 800, 800 [2d Dept 2014], citing Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838, 838 [2d Dept 2011]; Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [iv]; Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2d Dept 2014]; Matter of Tyrone G. v Fifi N., 189 AD2d 8, 14 [1st Dept 1993]). 2017Respondent’s failure to vacate the existing acknowledgment of paternity does not necessitate automatic dismissal of petitioner’s paternity petition because the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity “does not serve as an insuperable bar” to petitioner’s claim of paternity (see Thomas T., 121 AD3d at 800 ; Dwayne J.B., 89 AD3d 838 ; Antony S.N.T., 123 AD3d 835 ; Tyrone G., 189 AD2d 8 ). | 1 | 3 |
Matter of Jose M. v. Shaniqua F.green1 sentence2017Here, while the petitioner, who did not sign the acknowledgment of paternity, lacked standing under Family Court Act § 516-a to challenge the acknowledgment, “the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity is not an insuperable bar to a paternity proceeding commenced by a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2014]; see Matter of Jose M. v Shaniqua F., 124 AD3d 892, 893 [2015]; Matter of Marquis B. v Rason B., 94 AD3d 883 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Davison
green
2 sentences2017Here, while the petitioner, who did not sign the acknowledgment of paternity, lacked standing under Family Court Act § 516-a to challenge the acknowledgment, “the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity is not an insuperable bar to a paternity proceeding commenced by a stranger to the acknowledgment” (Matter of Antony S.N.T. v Rosemarie B.T., 123 AD3d 835, 836 [2014]; see Matter of Jose M. v Shaniqua F., 124 AD3d 892, 893 [2015]; Matter of Marquis B. v Rason B., 94 AD3d 883 [2012]). 2014Even so, the existence of an acknowledgment of paternity is not an insuperable bar to a paternity proceeding commenced by a stranger to the acknowledgment (see Matter of Thomas T. [Luba R.], 121 AD3d 800 [2014]; Matter of Marquis B. v Rason B., 94 AD3d at 883 ; Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838, 838 [2011]). | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Seth P. v. Margaret D.
green
1 sentence2017Further, the Family Court appropriately applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel in adjudicating the petitioner to be the father of the child, as the record established that the mother permitted the petitioner to hold himself out as the child’s father, that the petitioner had supported the child for most of the child’s life, and that the petitioner exclusively took care of the child during a period when the mother was incarcerated (see Matter of Seth R v Margaret D., 90 AD3d 1053 [2011]; Matter of Antonio H. v Angelic W., 51 AD3d 1022 [2008]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Government Employees Insurance v. Steinmetz
green
1 sentence2017Further, the Family Court appropriately applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel in adjudicating the petitioner to be the father of the child, as the record established that the mother permitted the petitioner to hold himself out as the child’s father, that the petitioner had supported the child for most of the child’s life, and that the petitioner exclusively took care of the child during a period when the mother was incarcerated (see Matter of Seth R v Margaret D., 90 AD3d 1053 [2011]; Matter of Antonio H. v Angelic W., 51 AD3d 1022 [2008]). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re the Estate of Heitman
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Matter of Hill v. Vrooman
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
In re the Estate of Heitman
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Hill v. Vrooman
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of First Trust & Deposit Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
McNeil v. Schermerhorn
neutral
1 sentence1938(Matter of Heitman, 154 Misc. 838 ; affd., 247 App. Div. 855 ; affd., 272 N. Y. 533 ; Cheney v. Arnold, 15 id. 345; Hill v. Vrooman, 215 App. Div. 847 ; affd., 242 N. Y. 549 ; Matter of Pratt, 233 App. Div. 200 ; Graham v. Graham, 211 id. 580; Matter of Auerbach, 208 id. 163.) There is in addition an insuperable bar to a finding that a marriage between the parties ever existed. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
De Coss v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc.
green
2 sentences1936(DeCoss v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., 267 N. Y. 207 ; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 id. 304 .) “ A cause of action does not consist of facts, but of the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show. 1936(DeCoss v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., 267 N. Y. 207 ; Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 id. 304 .) “ A cause of action does not consist of facts, but of the unlawful violation of a right which the facts show. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Moran v. . McLarty
neutral
1 sentence1895Moran v. McLarty, 75 N. Y. 25 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Mayor of New York v. Lyons
neutral
1 sentence1890Bk. v. Spencer, 19 Hun, 569 ; Mayor, etc., v. Lyons, 1 Daly, 296 ; Brigg v. Hilton, 99 N. Y. 517 ; Graham’s Pr. 702 et seq.) We think the statute referred to presents an insuperable bar to the motion to vacate, and that the order of the General Term should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs hi this court and the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Brigg v. . Hilton
green
1 sentence1890Bk. v. Spencer, 19 Hun, 569 ; Mayor, etc., v. Lyons, 1 Daly, 296 ; Brigg v. Hilton, 99 N. Y. 517 ; Graham’s Pr. 702 et seq.) We think the statute referred to presents an insuperable bar to the motion to vacate, and that the order of the General Term should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs hi this court and the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1890–1890 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.