You are here: / / HEARING NECESSARY ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO CHANGE THE SURNAME OF ONE...
,

HEARING NECESSARY ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO CHANGE THE SURNAME OF ONE OF THE CHILDREN, MATTER REMITTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing should have been held on mother’s petition to change the surname of one of their children. The petition was opposed by father:

“Civil Rights Law § 63 authorizes an infant’s name change if there is no reasonable objection to the proposed name, and the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change” … . With respect to infants, the statute provides in relevant part, that, if the court is “satisfied . . . that the petition is true, . . . that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, and . . . that the interests of the infant will be substantially promoted by the change,” the court may grant the petition (§ 63). With respect to the interests of the infant, “the issue is not whether it is in the infant’s best interests to have the surname of the mother or father, but whether the interests of the infant will be promoted substantially by changing his [or her] surname” … . Such a determination “requires a court to consider the totality of the circumstances” … .

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, respondent raised reasonable objections to the petition … . Petitioner is seeking to change the sons’ names to a surname that is not used by either parent or the sons’ half-sibling … . While “neither parent has a superior right to determine the surname of the child,” we have stated that “a father has a recognized interest in having his child bear his surname” … . Respondent also contends that an order granting the petition will have a deleterious effect on his relationship with his sons … . Although petitioner contends that the sons desire the name change, that contention is based on hearsay, and respondent challenges that contention. Inasmuch as the court did not conduct an in camera interview with them, we cannot resolve that disputed issue on this record. In any event, the sons are now of sufficient age and maturity to express their preference for a particular surname, and they have a right to be heard … . Matter of Niethe (McCarthy–DePerno), 2017 NY Slip Op 05371, 4th Dept 6-30-17

 

You might also like
THE PROPERTY-INSURANCE EXCLUSION FOR “DETERIORATION” APPLIED TO THE BULGING WALL CAUSED BY THE DETERIORATION OF BRICKS, PRECLUDING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY SUBMITTING MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE SENTENCING COURT IN THE RELATED CRIMINAL CASE; THE RECORDS WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A MITIGATION REPORT WHICH IS DEEMED “CONFIDENTIAL” PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS WAS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
LABOR LAW 198-b, WHICH PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER’S COLLECTING KICKBACKS FROM AN EMPLOYEE, DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER (FOURTH DEPT).
Contract Between Employer and Contractor Did Not Create a Duty Owed to Employee/Instrument of Harm Doctrine Not Applicable
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S UNDERWEAR WAS AN ILLEGAL STRIP SEARCH.

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

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER,... PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO...