| Matter of Peter Z. v Nilda C. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09784 [46 AD3d 696] |
| December 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Peter Z., Appellant, v Nilda C.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent. Carol Sherman, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), Law Guardian.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the petitioner appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (O'Shea, J.), dated February 21, 2007, which deniedthe petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The child who is the subject of this paternity proceeding was born in December 1998, atwhich time nonparty David C. acknowledged paternity. Subsequently, the parental rights ofDavid C. and of the child's biological mother were terminated. In 2003, David C.'s mother, therespondent herein, adopted the child, who had previously been living with her as her foster child.In 2004 the child's biological mother died. Although David C.'s parental rights to the child wereterminated, he has continuously maintained a father/daughter relationship with her, and she callshim "daddy."
The petitioner, Peter Z., apparently had a sexual relationship with the child's biologicalmother during the period of time in which the child was conceived. It is undisputed that he wasaware of the pregnancy of the biological mother, of the birth of the child, of the proceedings toterminate parental rights, and of the respondent's adoption of the child. However, he claims not tohave suspected that he might be the father of the child until seeing photographs of her after the[*2]death of the biological mother in 2004.
Without revealing his suspicions to the respondent, the petitioner was permitted to spendtime with the child, supervised by the respondent. In 2005 he filed a petition seeking to bedeclared the father of the child. Based on submissions of the petitioner, the respondent, and theLaw Guardian for the child, the Family Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding,without a hearing, finding that the petitioner lacked standing to seek an order of filiation, and wasalso equitably estopped from doing so. We affirm.
Any rights that the petitioner had, as a putative biological parent of the child, wereextinguished upon the respondent's adoption of the child pursuant to Domestic Relations Law§ 117 (1) (a), which states that "[a]fter the making of an order of adoption the birth parentsof the adoptive child shall be relieved of all parental duties toward and of all responsibilities forand shall have no rights over such adoptive child."
While we recognize that Domestic Relations Law § 117 is not applied literally whereto do so would not serve the best interest of the child, literal application is appropriate in thiscase, "where there is a need to prevent unwanted intrusion by the child's former biologicalrelatives to promote the stability of the new adoptive family" (Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d651, 665 [1995]).
In any event, we also agree with the Family Court that the undisputed facts support a findingthat the proceeding is subject to dismissal on the ground of equitable estoppel. Goldstein, J.P.,Skelos, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.