Matter of Glenda G. v Mariano M.
2009 NY Slip Op 03944 [62 AD3d 536]
May 19, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009


In the Matter of Glenda G., Respondent,
v
Mariano M.,Appellant.

[*1]Dora M. Lassinger, East Rockaway, for appellant.

Julian A. Hertz, Larchmont, for respondent.

Andrew H. Rossmer, Bronx, Law Guardian.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2007,which declared respondent to be the father of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.

The record demonstrates that respondent had a long-standing sexual relationship withpetitioner, including during the time of conception. Respondent acknowledged that the child,who is now 14 years old, calls him "Dad" and that he spoke to the child about his future.Respondent saw the child every few months and bought him clothing and he never attempted todissuade the child from believing he was the father. Furthermore, the court interviewed the child,who informed the court that he knew respondent as his father and that he wished to have a closerrelationship with him; there is no evidence or claim that any other person could be the father ofthe child.

Under these circumstances, where respondent assumed the role of a parent, albeit somewhatlimited, and led the child to believe he was his father, the court properly concluded that the bestinterests of the child required that respondent be estopped from denying paternity (see Matterof Sarah S. v James T., 299 AD2d 785 [2002]). Respondent's reason for demanding a DNAtest, to remove his doubts as to whether he was the father, is not a sufficient basis for ordering aDNA test, almost 13 years after the child's birth (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 331-332 [2006]).While the court should have reduced its decision to writing at the time (Family Ct Act §418 [a]), its reasoning had to have been clear to respondent, who was [*2]present when the court made its fact-finding on the record (see Matter of Tanesha H. v Phillip C.,57 AD3d 403 [2008]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz andRenwick, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.