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
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE LANGUAGE IN THE RELEASE WAS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND NONE OF THE TRADITIONAL FACTORS WHICH INVALIDATE A CONTRACT WERE PRESENT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Case Sent Back to Suppression Court for Hearing to Determine Admissibility of Statements
Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal of Plaintiff’s Verdict
DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE CONTESTED PROMOTION OF A SHERIFF’S DISPATCHER WAS ARBITRABLE UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN PROCEEDINGS ABOUT WHETHER THE TOWN WAS OBLIGATED TO PLOW THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS NOT A “QUASI-JUDICIAL” PROCEEDING AND THEREFORE THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;” THE STANDARD IS WHETHER THE DETERMINATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED CONSIDERATION OF A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED.

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 © 2025 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...