
    In the Matter of O., Respondent, v M., Appellant.
    [930 NYS2d 889]
   The appellant’s arguments concerning the issues of the best interests of the child and equitable estoppel were raised by him, and determined by this Court, on a prior appeal (see Matter of O. v M., 67 AD3d 1018 [2009]). Under the circumstances, the appellant is barred from raising them again on this appeal (see Gorelik v Gorelik, 85 AD3d 856 [2011]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order directing him to pay child support, since no order had been previously issued establishing such an obligation on the part of the appellant (see Matter of Clarke v Clarke, 68 AD3d 1203 [2009]). Dillon, J.E, Belen, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.  