equitable estoppel doctrine in New York

2023The doctrine of equitable estoppel may "preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man" ( id. at 327 ). "'The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child [*2]relationship'" ( Matter of Felix M. v Leonarda R.C. , 118 AD3d 886, 886 , quoting Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N. , 15 NY3d 1, 5 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and has been applied "[i]n situations where an indivi

2023The doctrine of equitable estoppel "has been used to prevent a biological father from asserting paternity rights when it would be detrimental to the child's interests to disrupt the child's close relationship with another father figure" ( Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N. , 15 NY3d 1, 6 [2010]; see Matter of John J. v Kayla I. , 137 AD3d 1500, 1501 [3d Dept 2016]).

2023The doctrine of equitable estoppel may "preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man" ( id. at 327 ). "'The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child [*2]relationship'" ( Matter of Felix M. v Leonarda R.C. , 118 AD3d 886, 886 , quoting Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N. , 15 NY3d 1, 5 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and has been applied "[i]n situations where an indivi

2023"The doctrine of equitable estoppel may 'preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man'" ( Matter of Yaseen S. v Oksana F. , 214 AD3d 883, 884 , quoting Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. , 7 NY3d 320, 327 ).

2021The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to toll the statute of limitations here where the complaint alleges no fraud, misrepresentation, or deception subsequent to those that form the basis of plaintiffs' claims ( Zumpano v Quinn , 6 NY3d 666, 674 [2006]).

2021The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to toll the statute of limitations here where the complaint alleges no fraud, misrepresentation, or deception subsequent to those that form the basis of plaintiffs' claims ( Zumpano v Quinn , 6 NY3d 666, 674 [2006]).

2017Thus, the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the child (see Matter of Charles v Charles, 296 AD2d 547, 549 [2002]).

2014The doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the subject child (see Family Ct Act § 418 [a]; Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d at 5 ; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 326 ; Matter of Charles v Charles, 296 AD2d 547, 549 [2002]).

2015Thus, the court must make a determination whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, 469 [3d Dept 1983], affd 63 NY2d 859 [1984]).

2010The party raising the doctrine of equitable estoppel — here, the mother — has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case sufficient to support that claim (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 588 [2010]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812, 815 [1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]; Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, 468 [1983], affd for reasons stated below 63 NY2d 859 [1984]).

2018The doctrine of equitable estoppel is an extraordinary remedy that is applicable only where the plaintiff "was induced by fraud, misrepresentations, or deception to refrain from filing a timely action." ( Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc. , 8 NY3d 478 , 491 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; Flagstar , 2015 WL 1646683, at * 3.) The standard of prevention for purposes of the equitable estoppel doctrine is more rigorous than the causation standard, under which there may be multiple causes of damages, so long as a party's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the damages.

2018The doctrine of equitable estoppel is an extraordinary remedy that is applicable only where the plaintiff "was induced by fraud, misrepresentations, or deception to refrain from filing a timely action." ( Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc. , 8 NY3d 478 , 491 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; Flagstar , 2015 WL 1646683 , at * 3.) The standard of prevention for purposes of the equitable estoppel doctrine is more rigorous than the causation standard, under which there may be multiple causes of damages, so long as a party's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the damages

2015Those contentions are without merit. “[T]he Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent” (Matter of Palmatier v Dane, 97 AD3d 864, 865 [2012]; see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 589-597 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 767 [2010], cert denied 562 US 1136 [2011]; Matter

2010The party raising the doctrine of equitable estoppel — here, the mother — has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case sufficient to support that claim (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 588 [2010]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812, 815 [1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]; Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, 468 [1983], affd for reasons stated below 63 NY2d 859 [1984]).

2014Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).

2010Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 552 [2006], quoting Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 673 [2006]; see Reiner v Jaeger, 50 AD3d at 762 ).

2023The doctrine of equitable estoppel may "preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man" ( id. at 327 ). "'The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child [*2]relationship'" ( Matter of Felix M. v Leonarda R.C. , 118 AD3d 886, 886 , quoting Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N. , 15 NY3d 1, 5 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and has been applied "[i]n situations where an indivi

2020The doctrine of equitable estoppel may "preclude a man who claims to be a child's biological father from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man" ( id. at 327 ). " The doctrine in this way protects the status interests of a child in an already recognized and operative parent-child relationship'" ( Matter of Felix M. v Leonarda R.C. , 118 AD3d 886, 886 , quoting Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N. , 15 NY3d 1, 5 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and has been applied "[i]n situations where an individual

2023In view of the foregoing, the court correctly dismissed the mother's equitable estoppel defense ( see Matter of John D. v Carrie C. , 202 AD3d at 1359-1360 ; Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B. , 135 AD3d 1025, 1028 [3d Dept 2016], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 957 [2016]; Matter of Starla D. v Jeremy E. , 95 AD3d 1605, 1607 [3d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1015 [2012]). [FN2] To the extent that the mother contends that the attorney for the child [*2]at the hearing improperly substituted judgment for the child, such contention is unpreserved in the absence of a motion to remove the attorney for the

2023In view of the foregoing, the court correctly dismissed the mother's equitable estoppel defense ( see Matter of John D. v Carrie C. , 202 AD3d at 1359-1360 ; Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B. , 135 AD3d 1025, 1028 [3d Dept 2016], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 957 [2016]; Matter of Starla D. v Jeremy E. , 95 AD3d 1605, 1607 [3d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1015 [2012]). [FN2] To the extent that the mother contends that the attorney for the child [*2]at the hearing improperly substituted judgment for the child, such contention is unpreserved in the absence of a motion to remove the attorney for the

2018Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 184 ; see Matter of John Robert P. v Vito C., 23 AD3d 659, 661 ; Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285 ; Matter of Boyles v Boyles, 95 AD2d 95, 97 ).

2018Corp., 56 NY2d 175, 184 ; see Matter of John Robert P. v Vito C., 23 AD3d 659, 661 ; Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285 ; Matter of Boyles v Boyles, 95 AD2d 95, 97 ).

2017The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply to bar the assertion of the statute of limitations defense, since plaintiff failed to allege that specific subsequent acts by defendants kept him from timely bringing suit (see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 NY3d 777, 789 [2012]).

2016Nor does the doctrine of equitable estoppel apply to bar the assertion of the statute of limitations defense, since plaintiff failed to allege that specific subsequent acts by defendant kept him from timely bringing suit (see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 18 NY3d 777, 789 [2012]).

2016Co. v City of New York, 218 AD2d 628, 628 (1st Dept 1995) (“that extraordinary remedy is only applicable in circumstances where there is evidence that plaintiff was lulled into inaction by defendant in order to allow the statute of limitations to lapse”)], affd 8 NY3d 901 [2007].) “For the doctrine to apply, a plaintiff may not rely on the same act that forms the basis for the claim — the later fraudulent misrepresentation must be for the purpose of concealing the former tort.” (Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 491 [2007] [emphasis added], citing Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 674 [2

2006Co. v City of New York, 218 AD2d 628, 628 [1995]), provides that a defendant may be estopped from pleading the statute of limitations where the plaintiff “was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action” (Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442 , 448-449 [1978]; Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 122 [2003]), or, stated another way, that the plaintiff was “lulled” into inaction by defendants so that the statute of limitations would expire (Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr. v Town of Hempstead, 278 AD2d 279, 280 [2000]).

2023In view of the foregoing, the court correctly dismissed the mother's equitable estoppel defense ( see Matter of John D. v Carrie C. , 202 AD3d at 1359-1360 ; Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B. , 135 AD3d 1025, 1028 [3d Dept 2016], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 957 [2016]; Matter of Starla D. v Jeremy E. , 95 AD3d 1605, 1607 [3d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1015 [2012]). [FN2] To the extent that the mother contends that the attorney for the child [*2]at the hearing improperly substituted judgment for the child, such contention is unpreserved in the absence of a motion to remove the attorney for the

2023In view of the foregoing, the court correctly dismissed the mother's equitable estoppel defense ( see Matter of John D. v Carrie C. , 202 AD3d at 1359-1360 ; Matter of Patrick A. v Rochelle B. , 135 AD3d 1025, 1028 [3d Dept 2016], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 957 [2016]; Matter of Starla D. v Jeremy E. , 95 AD3d 1605, 1607 [3d Dept 2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 1015 [2012]). [FN2] To the extent that the mother contends that the attorney for the child [*2]at the hearing improperly substituted judgment for the child, such contention is unpreserved in the absence of a motion to remove the attorney for the

2015In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel “ ‘is imposed by law in the interest of fairness to prevent the enforcement of rights which would work [a] fraud or injustice upon the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, in justifiable reliance upon the opposing party’s words or conduct, has been misled into acting upon the belief that such enforcement would not be sought’ ” (Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285 [2d Dept 1998], quoting Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods.

2007The Family Court properly denied the motion to vacate the order of filiation based upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel. “ ‘The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases has been, and continues to be, the best interests of the child’ ” (Matter of Maurice T. v Mark P., 23 AD3d 567 , 567 [2005], quoting Jean Maby H. v Joseph H., 246 AD2d 282, 285 [1998]; see Matter of Kump v Basnight, 297 AD2d 639 [2002]; Matter of Ettore I. v Angela D., 127 AD2d 6 [1987]).

2015Thus, the court must make a determination whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, 469 [3d Dept 1983], affd 63 NY2d 859 [1984]).

2010The party raising the doctrine of equitable estoppel — here, the mother — has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case sufficient to support that claim (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 588 [2010]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812, 815 [1997], Iv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]; Matter of Sharon GG. v Duane HH., 95 AD2d 466, 468 [1983], affd for reasons stated below 63 NY2d 859 [1984]).

2007The doctrine of equitable estoppel will “ ‘bar the assertion of the affirmative defense of the [sjtatute of Delimitations where it is the defendant’s affirmative wrongdoing . . . which produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding’ ” (Zumpano v Quinn, 6 NY3d 666, 673 [2006], quoting General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 NY2d 125, 128 [1966]).

2005Nevertheless, it is well settled that where, as here, a fiduciary relationship exists and there are allegations of concealment, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to toll the statute of limitations or preclude a litigant’s reliance on it (see General Stencils v Chiappa, 18 NY2d 125, 127-128 [1966]; Matter of Watson, 8 AD3d 1092 , 1094 [2004]; Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 288 AD2d at 819-820 ; Erbe v Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 13 AD2d 211, 213-215 [1961], appeal dismissed 11 NY2d 754 [1962]).

2015Those contentions are without merit. “[T]he Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent” (Matter of Palmatier v Dane, 97 AD3d 864, 865 [2012]; see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 589-597 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 767 [2010], cert denied 562 US 1136 [2011]; Matter

2015Those contentions are without merit. “[T]he Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent” (Matter of Palmatier v Dane, 97 AD3d 864, 865 [2012]; see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 589-597 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 767 [2010], cert denied 562 US 1136 [2011]; Matter

2018Importantly, biology is not dispositive in a court's paternity determination ( see id. at 3 ["biological father may assert an equitable estoppel defense in paternity and child support proceedings"]; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. , 7 NY3d at 326, 330 [paternity by estoppel]; Matter of Carlos O. v Maria G. , 149 AD3d 945, 946-947 [2017] [test denied although parties agreed the petitioner is the biological father]; Matter of Melissa S. v Frederick T. , 8 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 688 [2004]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y. , 240 AD2d 812, 814 [1997] ["resolution of the esto

2016“The fact that testing was conducted, however, does not bar the court from thereafter deciding the estoppel issue” (Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d 1 , 6 n [2010]; see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 330 [2006]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y., 240 AD2d 812, 814 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 809 [1997]). “ ‘The doctrine of equitable estoppel is a defense in a paternity proceeding which, among other applications, precludes a man . . . from asserting his paternity when he acquiesced in the establishment of a strong parent-child bond between the child and another man’ ”

2007The doctrine of equitable estoppel "is imposed by law in the interest of fairness to prevent the enforcement of rights which would work fraud or injustice upon the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, in justifiable reliance upon the opposing party's words or conduct, has been misled into acting upon the belief that such enforcement would not be sought." Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Products Corp. 56 NY2d 175 , 436 N.E.2d 1265 (1982).

2007The doctrine of equitable estoppel "is imposed by law in the interest of fairness to prevent the enforcement of rights which would work fraud or injustice upon the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, in justifiable reliance upon the opposing party's words or conduct, has been misled into acting upon the belief that such enforcement would not be sought." Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Products Corp. 56 NY2d 175 , 436 N.E.2d 1265 (1982).

2013In all cases, “the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the child” (Matter of Charles v Charles, 296 AD2d 547, 549 [2002]; see Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d at 5 ; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 326 ; Matter of Derrick H. v Martha J., 82 AD3d at 1238 ).

2013In all cases, “the doctrine of equitable estoppel will be applied only where its use furthers the best interests of the child” (Matter of Charles v Charles, 296 AD2d 547, 549 [2002]; see Matter of Juanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d at 5 ; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 326 ; Matter of Derrick H. v Martha J., 82 AD3d at 1238 ).

2012However, the Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 589-597 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 908 [2011]; Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., 77 NY2d 651, 656-657 [1991]; Matter of Hayley PR [Christal PP. — Cindy QQ.], 7

2012However, the Court of Appeals has recently reiterated that a nonbiological, nonadoptive parent does not have standing to seek visitation when a biological parent who is fit opposes it, and that equitable estoppel does not apply in such situations even where the nonparent has enjoyed a close relationship with the child and exercised some control over the child with the parent’s consent (see Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 589-597 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 908 [2011]; Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., 77 NY2d 651, 656-657 [1991]; Matter of Hayley PR [Christal PP. — Cindy QQ.], 7

2022Here, petitioner commenced this paternity proceeding well beyond the 60-day statutory deadline and, therefore, Family Court erred in prematurely considering the equitable estoppel defense ( see Matter of Joshua AA. v Jessica BB. , 132 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2015]; see also Matter of Vaskovtsev v Melska , 174 AD3d 633 , 635 [2019]).

2018Importantly, biology is not dispositive in a court's paternity determination ( see id. at 3 ["biological father may assert an equitable estoppel defense in paternity and child support proceedings"]; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D. , 7 NY3d at 326, 330 [paternity by estoppel]; Matter of Carlos O. v Maria G. , 149 AD3d 945, 946-947 [2017] [test denied although parties agreed the petitioner is the biological father]; Matter of Melissa S. v Frederick T. , 8 AD3d 738, 738-739 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 688 [2004]; Matter of Richard W. v Roberta Y. , 240 AD2d 812, 814 [1997] ["resolution of the esto