You are here: / / Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof...
,

Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof In Support of Name-Change Petition

In this case the Fourth Department determined the court could not require petitioner, a parolee, to provide psychological and medical proof in support of a petition for a name change.  The Fourth Department wrote:

 …[W]e agree with petitioner that the court erred in requiring him to provide psychological and medical proof in support of the amended petition; such proof is irrelevant when the petitioner seeks only to assume a different name, “not a declaration of a gender ‘change[] from male to female’ ” …. Here, petitioner has not requested a declaration regarding gender, but by the amended petition has asked the court “only to sanction legally petitioner’s desire for a change of name, after satisfying itself that petitioner has no fraudulent purpose for doing so and that no other person’s rights are interfered with thereby” ….  Matter of Anonymous, CA 12-02056, 426, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

You might also like
PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AND THE POWER PLANT BECAME OPERATIONAL AT THE OUTSET OF THE MOTION PRACTICE SEEKING TO VACATE CERTAIN PERMITS WHICH ALLOWED THE PLANT TO RESUME OPERATIONS, THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) REVIVES OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIMS AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES ARE LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW FOR THE COURT, NOT THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (FOURTH DEPT).
Excess Insurance Policies Re: Same Risk Cancel Out
Case Remitted for Determination Whether Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender/Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Court Erred In Not Disclosing to the Defendant the Written Submissions of the Victims Which Were Reviewed by the Court–Case Remitted to Make an Adequate Record for Review
Regulation Properly Promulgated—Analytical Criteria Described in Some Depth
DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW.
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Non-Negligent Explanation for Striking Vehicle from Behind Des... Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action which...