IN RE: the Application of Carlo F. Zelaya BOQUIN for leave to Change His Name to Carlo F. Zelaya Boquin Quinn. (2009)

Petitioner seeks to change his name from Carlo F. Zelaya Boquin to Carlo F. Zelaya Boquin Quinn to formally adopt the last name he has used his whole life, “Quinn”, which is the surname of the couple that raised him.

 Although one does not need permission of the court to change one's name.  Smith v. United States Casualty Co., 197 N.Y. 420, 90 N.E. 947 (1910) ¹ .  Public policy favors a court's review and granting of name change applications because this makes the change of name a matter of public record.  Matter of Halligan, 46 A.D.2d 170, 361 N.Y.S.2d 458 (4th Dept., 1974);  In re Mohomed, 3 Misc.3d 402, 775 N.Y.S.2d 488 (S.Ct. Rockland County, 2004);  Matter of Linda Ann A., 126 Misc.2d 43, 44, 480 N.Y.S.2d 996 (Civ. Ct. Queens Co., 1984).

 A court should not rubber stamp any application for name change as it is the Court's obligation to ensure that the name change will not be a source of fraud, evasion or interference with the rights of others.   See, Matter of Adoption of J.O.T., 120 Misc.2d 817, 466 N.Y.S.2d 636 (Fam.Ct. Kings County, 1983).

In support of his application, petitioner submits a verified petition that complies with the provisions for a name change found in Civil Rights Law § 61 ² together with petitioner's birth certificate from Honduras, although the petition does not state if he is still a citizen of Honduras.   In his application, petitioner states that he is a “permanent resident of the United States”, but submits no proof of this to the Court.

Also attached to the petition is an affidavit of petitioner's wife, Sara Carbone, who consents to the application.   However, a copy of his marriage license is not annexed to the petition therefore the Court cannot make any determination if the petitioner's name was changed pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 65 ³ .

 While citizenship ⁴ is not a prerequisite to obtaining a change of name under the statutory framework of the Civil Rights Law [see, Civil Rights Law Article 6;  In re Mohomed, supra ] a court many deny an application by an alien absent proof of their immigration status and stated intent to remain in the United States.   See also, Application of Lipschutz, 178 Misc. 113, 32 N.Y.S.2d 264 (S.Ct. Queens County, 1941).

 In the instant matter, as indicated petitioner submits no proof that he is a permanent resident of the United States.   The petition does not state petitioner's intentions with regard to remaining in the United States and does not indicate that, if the application were granted, he would advise the appropriate authorities in the United States and Honduras of the name change.   See, In re Mohomed, supra.

While the Court has no reason to doubt that petitioner's motives are anything but proper, nonetheless, the Court “must recognize the realities of the world we live in after the events of September 11, 2001 and the need to ensure compliance with the applicable immigration laws.”  In re Mohomed, supra, 3 Misc.3d at 403, 775 N.Y.S.2d at 490.

Accordingly, in the absence of proof regarding petitioner's immigration status and a statement that he will report the change of name to the appropriate authorities in the United States and Honduras, the application is DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon a properly supported petition.

The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case may be of interest for a history of the development of surnames.

2.   The petition specifies the grounds of the application, the name, date of birth, place of birth, age and residence of the petitioner and the name which he proposes to assume.   The petition also specifies that:  the petitioner has not been convicted of a crime or adjudicated a bankrupt;  there are no judgments or liens of record against him or actions or proceedings pending to which the petitioner is a party, and;  the petitioner is not responsible for child or spousal support obligations.

3.   Civil Rights Law § 65, provides for an optional name change upon marriage, divorce or annulment.   In the case of a name change upon marriage, the state provides that “Any person may, upon marriage, elect to assume a new name according to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section fifteen of the domestic relations law.”   Civil Rights Law § 65(1).  DRL § 15, provides for the option of an official change of name by marriage license application, to become effective upon marriage, and has the effect of providing a record of the change of name.

4.   “Any person, including an alien, should be allowed to change his name in good faith as he desires, provided such change would not violate any statutory provision or overriding public policy.”  In Matter of Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc.2d 1006, 1007, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387 (Civ.Ct., Kings County 1980).

WILLIAM J. GIACOMO, J.