IN RE: the Application of Peter CORTES For Leave to Change His Name to Zea (2008)

Appeal by permission from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jeremy S. Weinstein, J.), entered August 21, 2006.   The order denied a petition for an order changing petitioner's name from “Peter Cortes” to “Zea.”

Order reversed without costs, petition to change petitioner's name from “Peter Cortes” to “Zea” granted, and matter remanded to the Civil Court for entry of an order pursuant to section 63 of the Civil Rights Law.

 Under the circumstances presented, the court below improperly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's application to change his name from “Peter Cortes” to the single name of “Zea”. Under common law, a person may change his or her name at will, and the change is accomplished by usage or habit (see Matter of Halligan, 46 A.D.2d 170, 361 N.Y.S.2d 458 [4th Dept.1974] ).  Civil Rights Law § 63 merely provides that a court, petitioned by a person for a name change, upon ascertaining that the petition is true and that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, shall make an order authorizing the name change.   The statute affirms the common law right, and the two procedures exist side by side supplementing each other (id., citing Smith v. United States Cas. Co., 197 N.Y. 420, 90 N.E. 947 [1910] ).

 Upon reviewing a name change, the role of the court is to ensure that no fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with the rights of others is likely (see Smith v. United States Cas. Co., 197 N.Y. 420, 90 N.E. 947 [1910], supra;  Matter of Mendelson, 151 Misc.2d 367, 572 N.Y.S.2d 1014 [1991] ).   Courts ordinarily should grant a petition by an adult unless there is a reasonable objection to the proposed change (see Civil Rights Law § 63;  Matter of Washington, 216 A.D.2d 781, 628 N.Y.S.2d 837 [1995];  cf. Matter of Halligan, 46 A.D.2d 170, 361 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1974], supra ).   In contrast, an application which is against public policy (see Matter of Linda Ann A., 126 Misc.2d 43, 480 N.Y.S.2d 996 [1984] ), or which condones criminal activity (see Matter of Carol B., 81 Misc.2d 284, 366 N.Y.S.2d 98 [1975] ) is properly denied.   There exists no authority to support the opinion that the use of a single name will create confusion, disrupt official and business records or wreak havoc in the credit industries.

Here, petitioner has requested to change his name to express his artistic nature.   It is noted that, according to petitioner, he is commonly known as “Zea” and he has contacted a supervisor at the Department of Motor Vehicles and several credit card companies, who had no objection to the use of a single name.   Accordingly, in the absence of a reasonable objection, the petition should have been granted.