JACKSON, ANTHONY LAMONT, MTR. OF ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    880
    CA 15-00366
    PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY
    LAMONT JACKSON FOR LEAVE TO ASSUME THE NAME
    OF TONIESHA SISSY JACKSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    ------------------------------------------------    MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND
    NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
    COMMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
    MIK KINKEAD, SYLVIA RIVERA LAW PROJECT, NEW YORK CITY, FOR
    PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County
    (Robert B. Wiggins, A.J.), entered December 10, 2014. The order
    denied the petition for a change of name.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
    unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is
    granted.
    Memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at Groveland Correctional
    Facility, appeals from an order that denied the petition for a change
    of name “with leave to re-petition upon Petitioner’s release from
    prison.” Supreme Court erred in denying the petition. “A court’s
    authority to review an application for a name change is limited; if
    ‘the petition is true, and . . . there is no reasonable objection to
    the change of name proposed, . . . the court shall make an order
    authorizing the petitioner to assume the name proposed’ ” (Matter of
    Powell, 95 AD3d 1631, 1632, quoting Civil Rights Law § 63). The
    petition satisfies the requirements of Civil Rights Law § 61, and
    petitioner’s incarceration, without more, does not justify denial of
    the petition. Indeed, respondent New York State Department of
    Corrections and Community Supervision has received notice of this
    application and takes no position with respect thereto (see § 62 [2]).
    “Under these circumstances, and absent any indication of fraud,
    misrepresentation or intent to interfere with others’ rights,” we
    conclude that the court should have granted the petition (Powell, 95
    AD3d at 1632-1633).
    Entered:    November 10, 2016                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 15-00366

Filed Date: 11/10/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2016