| Matter of Leonardo Antonio V. v Estate of Joanna B. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02689 [82 AD3d 1253] |
| March 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Leonardo Antonio V., Appellant, v Estateof Joanna B., Respondent. |
—[*1] Frederick K. Brewington, Hempstead, N.Y. (Valerie M. Cartright of counsel), forrespondent. James E. Flood, Jr., Massapequa, N.Y., Attorney for the Child.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the putative father LeonardoAntonio V. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), datedJanuary 27, 2010, which, without a hearing, and upon granting the motion of the attorney for thechild to dismiss the petition on the ground of equitable estoppel, dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Family Court properly dismissed the petition based on equitable estoppel. Theparamount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of thesubject child (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]; Matter ofJuan A. v Rosemarie N., 55 AD3d 827 [2008]; Matter of Antonio H. v Angelic W.,51 AD3d 1022 [2008]). Here, the petitioner commenced this proceeding after he had beenarrested and charged with murdering the subject child's mother. The petitioner was subsequentlyconvicted, inter alia, of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life in prison without thepossibility of parole. The evidence established that the six-year-old subject child had arelationship with a person identified by her deceased mother as her biological father.Accordingly, the petitioner failed to identify any benefit that would accrue to the subject child ifthe petition were granted (see Matter of Willie W. v Magdalena D., 78 AD3d 958 [2010];see also Matter of Ruth W. v Lewis F., 11 AD3d 627 [2004]).
Since the Family Court was presented with sufficient information to make a determination asto the subject child's best interests, the Family Court properly granted the motion of the Attorneyfor the Child to dismiss the petition on the ground of equitable estoppel without conducting ahearing (see Matter of Maurice T. v Mark P., 23 AD3d 567 [2005]; Matter of Griffinv Marshall, 294 AD2d 438 [2002]). Covello, J.P., Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.