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...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.