AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN RE PROCEEDING, ETC., DANIEL RUDMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ELISABETH RUBENFELD, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner's application to establish that he was the biological father of the subject child was properly dismissed on the ground of equitable estoppel. The child was born in 1985 and the evidence duly credited by the hearing court demonstrated that, in the 11 years between the child's birth and the filing of the instant petition, petitioner has had little or no contact with the child and has taken no measures to establish a relationship with her (see Terrence M. v. Gale C., 193 A.D.2d 437, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 661; also see Glen T. v. Donna U., 226 A.D.2d 803). Under the circumstances, the child's best interests would not be served by permitting, at this late juncture, a disruption of the family unit that has been in place since her birth.

Motion seeking to relieve counsel and for other related relief denied.

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

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE PROCEEDING, RUDMAN v. RUBENFELD
(Dec 10, 2002)