Joseph v. Granderson (Second Dept. 2024)(2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 01921)(Apr 10, 2024)
Apr 10, 2024OUTCOME:
Family Court erred in sua sponte dismissing mother’s support petition on basis court lacked subject matter jurisdiction since parties were never married and there was no acknowledgment of parentage or ... order of filiation. Mother’s petition alleged Granderson was father of her child born in 2015, submitted a birth certificate listing Granderson as father, indicated child was given Granderson’s last name at birth, and a DNA report showed a 99.99% probability of Granderson’s paternity. Mother also submitted a so-ordered stipulation from custody proceedings in which parties agreed it was in child’s best interests that Granderson, identified as ‘Father have parental access at least once per week. A support proceeding commenced pursuant to FCA article 4 indisputably confers upon court jurisdiction to determine whether an individual parent is responsible to support of a child. See FCA § 413[1][a]; Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 14 NY3d 521, 527; Matter of Charles v. Charles, 296 A.D.2d 547. Moreover, given mother’s evidentiary submissions, Court should have precluded Granderson from raising issue of paternity under doctrine of judicial estoppel. See Matter of Arriaga v. Dukoff, 123 AD3d 1023, 1026; Paese v. Paese, 144 AD3d 770. Here, Granderson successfully obtained an order awarding him parental access with child based on his assertion he was child’s parent and as a result he is judicially estopped from now taking an inconsistent position for purpose of child support.
