Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Davidson C.L.

Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v Davidson C.L. 2026 NY Slip Op 05544 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Westchester County Department of Social Services, on behalf of Shemma S. S., respondent, v Davidson C. L. (Anonymous), appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2024-11372, (Docket No. P-10879-23) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Carol Carozza, New Rochelle, NY, for appellant. John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, NY (Justin R. Adin and Alida L. Marcos of counsel), for respondent. Gloria Marchetti-Bruck, White Plains, NY, for Shemma S. S. Eric M. Fayer, Harrison, NY, attorney for the child. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, Davidson C. L. appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Melissa A. Loehr, J.), dated October 23, 2024. The order, after a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel, determined that Davidson C. L. was equitably estopped from obtaining a court-ordered genetic marker test, denied Davidson C. L.'s application for a genetic marker test, and directed the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating Davidson C. L. to be the father of the subject child. ORDERED that the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see Family Ct Act § 1112[a]); and it is further, ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In 2023, the petitioner, on behalf of the mother, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, inter alia, to adjudicate the appellant to be the father of the subject child, who was born in October 2008. The appellant made an application for a genetic marker test. In an order dated October 23, 2024, after a hearing on the issue of equitable estoppel, the Family Court determined that the appellant was equitably estopped from obtaining a court-ordered genetic marker test, denied his application for that test, and directed the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating the appellant to be the father of the child. Family Court Act § 532(a) provides, inter alia, that no genetic marker or DNA tests to determine paternity shall be ordered where the Family Court has made a written finding that such testing is not in the best interests of the child on the basis of equitable estoppel (see Matter of Walter G. v Isabel L.A., 179 AD3d 680, 681; Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v Arnoldo B., 130 AD3d 743, 744). The paramount concern in applying equitable estoppel in paternity cases is the best interests of the child (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d 320, 326; Matter of [*2]Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. v Dominick C., 162 AD3d 1053, 1054). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the best interests of the child support the Family Court's application, after the hearing, of the doctrine of equitable estoppel in denying the appellant's application for a genetic marker test and directing the issuance of an order of filiation adjudicating him to be the father of the child (see Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 7 NY3d at 328; Matter of Shaundell M. v. Trevor C., 167 AD3d 615, 616). Issues of credibility were for the court to resolve, and there is no basis to disturb its determination to credit the testimony of the child's mother and reject the appellant's testimony (see Matter of Westchester County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Llevon A.P., 188 AD3d 1080, 1081; Matter of Shaundell M. v. Trevor C., 167 AD3d at 616). DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court