| Matter of Rason S.B. v Alexis H. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08303 [101 AD3d 710] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Rason S.B., Petitioner, v Alexis H.,Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of John M. Zenir, on Behalf of Sarriah H.-B.,Respondent, v Rason S.B. et al., Respondents, and Marquis B., Also Known as Marquis H.B.,Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Marquis B., Also Known as Marquis H.B.,Appellant, v Alexis H., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.). |
—[*1] Mitra K. Zervos, Great Neck, N.Y., for respondent Alexis H. William A. Sheeckutz, Massapequa, N.Y., for respondent-respondent Rason B. John M. Zenir, Esq., P.C., Mineola, N.Y., attorney for the child, respondent pro se.
In a paternity proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 (Proceeding No. 3) andrelated custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 (ProceedingNos. 1 and 2), Marquis B., also known as Marquis H.B., appeals, as limited by his brief, fromstated portions of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated August 22,2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, denied his paternity petition based upon equitableestoppel, dismissed that proceeding, and dismissed the related visitation proceeding (ProceedingNo. 2).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.[*2]
The issue on this appeal is who should be legallyrecognized as the father of the subject child. Two persons claim to be the father: the appellant,Marquis B., also known as Marquis H.B., and Rason S.B. Following the birth of the subject childon January 16, 2005, the mother, Alexis H., and Rason S.B., signed an acknowledgment ofpaternity. According to the appellant's testimony at the hearing, he and the mother maintained aboyfriend-girlfriend relationship before the child's birth, but that relationship ended shortly afterthe child was born. Further, the appellant testified that he interacted with the child and introducedthe child to his family. In February 2007, the appellant learned that he was the child's biologicalfather. However, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the child spent most ofher time with Rason S.B., who had assumed the role of father of the child.
In February 2009, the appellant and Rason S.B. met for the first time, and learned of theircompeting claims with respect to the child. Thereafter, the appellant commenced a proceedingpursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish his paternity of the child (Proceeding No. 3).In the order appealed from, the Family Court, after a hearing, inter alia, denied the paternitypetition based upon equitable estoppel, dismissed that proceeding, and dismissed a relatedvisitation proceeding (Proceeding No. 2).
The Family Court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel (see Family CtAct § 532 [a]) to preclude the appellant from asserting his paternity claim with respect tothe subject child. The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is thebest interests of the child (see Matter ofJuanita A. v Kenneth Mark N., 15 NY3d 1, 5 [2010]; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7NY3d 320, 326 [2006]), not the equities between the adult parties (see Matter of ShondelJ. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 330; Marilyn C.Y. v Mark N.Y., 64 AD3d 645, 646 [2009]). Althoughthe mother concealed from the appellant the role that Rason S.B. occupied in the child's life,during the period in which the appellant delayed in asserting his paternity claim, the childdeveloped a close relationship with Rason S.B. The Family Court correctly determined that theapplication of equitable estoppel served the best interests of the child by preserving her closerelationship with Rason S.B., whom she identified as her father. We note that the position of theattorney for the child, urging affirmance of the Family Court's determination, is supported by therecord.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit (see Domestic RelationsLaw § 70; Debra H. v JaniceR., 14 NY3d 576, 595-596 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 908[2011]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.