Marquis B. v. Rason B.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Antony S.N.T. v. Rosemarie B.T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Matter of Escobar v. Pagan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Ryan M. E. v. Shelby S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Butler v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Marshall P. v. Latifah H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Stephen N. v. Amanda O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Emily R. v. Emilio R. (NYC Family Court 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, inter alia, to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated September 7, 2010, which denied his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Bannon, S.M.), dated June 11, 2010, as denied that branch of his petition which was to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity.
Ordered that the order dated September 7, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner was not a signatory to the acknowledgment of paternity by the respondent Rason B. and, therefore, lacked standing to challenge it (see Family Ct Act § 516-a [b] [ii]). Since the petitioner claimed to be the father, he had standing pursuant to Family Court Act § 522 to challenge the ultimate issue of the child’s paternity (see Matter of Dwayne J.B. v Santos H., 89 AD3d 838 [2011]). However, the petitioner’s claims pursuant to Family Court Act § 522 were raised in a separate paternity proceeding which is not before this Court at this juncture.
The petitioner’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Florio, J.E, Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.