Summary
holding that mother and son were in privity with one another in prior paternity suit brought by mother; therefore, prior suit barred son's subsequent suit under doctrine of res judicata
Summary of this case from Purcell v. BellingerOpinion
April 22, 1996
Appeal from the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to establish that the respondent was his biological father. However, in 1984, the petitioner's mother commenced and unsuccessfully prosecuted a proceeding for the same relief ( see, Matter of Denise H. v. John C., 135 A.D.2d 816). Accordingly, because the petitioner and his mother are parties in privity with one another, the instant proceeding is barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( see, Matter of Slocum [Nathan A.] v. Joseph B., 183 A.D.2d 102). Contrary to the petitioner's assertions on appeal, the record reveals that the proceeding commenced by the petitioner's mother was neither commenced nor prosecuted by the Department of Social Services pursuant to Family Court Act § 571 ( see, Matter of Cathleen P. v. Gary P., 63 N.Y.2d 805; Matter of Rhonda Y. v Victor Z., 198 A.D.2d 596).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P.J., Ritter, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.