Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Commissioner of Social Services, Etc., Petitioner-Respondent v. Dimarcus C.

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


April 12, 2012

IN RE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ETC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
DIMARCUS C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Matter of Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Dimarcus C.

Decided on April 12, 2012

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Mary Bednar, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2010, which denied appellant's motion seeking genetic testing; and order of filiation, same court and Judge, also entered on or about December 1, 2010, declaring appellant to be the father of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to estop respondent from denying that he is the child's father (see Matter of Shondel J v Mark D, 7 NY3d 320, 326 [2006]). The testimony established that respondent has held himself out to be the father to his friends, family and co-workers, permits the child to call him "daddy," brought the child to the funeral of his grandmother, watched the child at his workplace on a regular basis, and provided the mother with money for the child. Moreover, the social worker stated that the twelve-year old child believes that respondent is his father and understands that other men in the mother's life are not his father.

The court was not required to determine the child's biological father when it dismissed the petition brought against another man, whom DNA testing established was not the father. Nor was it required to have the other man joined as a necessary party to these proceedings since the child was born out of wedlock and a father-son relationship exists between the child and respondent.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 12, 2012

CLERK

20120412

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.