You are here: / / PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF HIS RACE/NATIONALITY...
, ,

PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF HIS RACE/NATIONALITY PROPERLY DENIED; EX PARTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, NOTICES OF APPEAL TREATED AS APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW PURSUANT TO CPLR 5704 (a) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined petitioner’s application to change his race/nationality from “black/African American” to “Moor/Americas Aboriginal” was properly denied. The court noted that an ex parte order is not appealable but deemed the notices of appeal applications pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a):

“An ex parte order is not appealable … . However, under the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to treat the instant notices of appeal as applications for review pursuant to CPLR 5704(a) … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of that branch of the petition which was to change the petitioner’s race/nationality, as the petitioner presented no authority for the court to grant him such relief. Article 6 of the Civil Rights Law, which governs petitions for leave to assume another name, does not provide such authority. Further, a person’s race is a matter of self-identification. As to nationality, the sole means by which the petitioner may renounce his nationality as a United States citizen is to satisfy one of the conditions set forth in 8 USC § 1481(a) … . The petitioner made no showing that he met any of these conditions. Matter of Keis, 2019 NY Slip Op 04944, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

You might also like
Although Plaintiff Could Not Establish a Valid Mechanic’s Lien, Supreme Court Should Have Allowed the Action to Proceed As If it Were Brought As a Breach of Contract
COURT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER DEFENSES TO AN ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHETHER THE ACTION WOULD SURVIVE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT BEFORE THE COURT.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT RING AFTER THE ENGAGEMENT AND MARRIAGE WERE CALLED OFF (SECOND DEPT).
THE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
“Forum Non Conveniens” Dismissal Proper
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Have the Right to Be Present During Discussion of Exclusion of a Sworn Juror

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

NO SHOWING THAT THE AMBULANCE SIREN OR EMERGENCY LIGHTS WERE IN USE WHEN THE... MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE A FACT-FINDING OF NEGLECT WITHOUT ADMISSION...