| Matter of Tanesha H. v Phillip C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10191 [57 AD3d 403] |
| December 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Tanesha H., Respondent, v Phillip C.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Scott Shorr of counsel), forrespondent. The Children's Law Center, Brooklyn (Janet Neustaetter of counsel), LawGuardian.
Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Marian Shelton, J.), entered on or about July 12, 2007,declaring respondent to be the father of the subject children, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.
The hearing evidence, as well as the testimony of the children received in camera, amplyestablishes that respondent acted and held himself out to be the children's father over a period ofyears, and that they perceived themselves as having had a loving family relationship with him.According due deference to the court's assessment of the conflicting testimony of the parents(Matter of Anne R. v Estate of Francis C., 234 AD2d 375, 376 [1996], lv denied89 NY2d 815 [1997]), we find that petitioner proved respondent's paternity by clear andconvincing evidence (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 NY2d137 [1983]). Furthermore, in viewing the matter from the perspective of the children, weconclude that it would not be in their best interests to conduct genetic marker testing infurtherance of respondent's challenge to paternity, which the court equitably estopped (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7NY3d 320 [2006]; Matter of JoseF.R. v Reina C.A., 46 AD3d 564 [2007]). Although the court should have reduced itsdecision to writing at the time (Family Ct Act § [*2]418[a]), its reasoning must have been clear to respondent from the explicit fact-finding on the record.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.