Arnold v. Goosby
Opinion of the Court
— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Erie County Family Court for further proceedings on the petition in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in finding that respondent’s stipulation to the entry of an order of protection against him in the context of a family offense proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act collaterally estopped him from contesting the issue of paternity raised in a collateral proceeding by separate petition. There is no identity of issue between the jurisdictional determination in a family offense proceeding whether petitioner and respondent "have a child in common” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [d]) and the issue of paternity. The determination of those issues is dependent upon different burdens of proof. The former is satisfied by proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence (Family Ct Act § 832); whereas the latter must be established by clear and convincing evidence creating a genuine belief that respondent is the father of the child (Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Philip De G., 59 NY2d 137, 141-142). Moreover, no collateral estoppel effect should attach to the order entered upon the stipulation of counsel in the family offense proceeding inasmuch as there was nothing " 'actually litigated and determined’ ” (Kaufman v Lilly &
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.