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
ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
FATHER’S RIGHT TO FILE FUTURE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT; RATHER THE TREATMENT SHOULD BE A CONDITION FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE BURGLARY PLEA COLLOQUY DID NOT INDICATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME OTHER THAN TRESPASS IN THE PREMISES; THEREFORE THE COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; PRESERVATION FOR APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS GENRE OF ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FATHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK AN AGGRESSIVE ADVERSERIAL STANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
THE UNIQUE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FIRST DEGREE FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WERE NOT MET; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT STIPULATED TO THE ACCURACY OF AN INACCURATE SPECIAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT (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

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...