Civil Rights Law § 61 requires verification of a name-change applicant's "residence," not legal residence, and considerations of citizenship and immigration status should not be lightly imported by implication into the statutory scheme where to do so would ignore the plain meaning of the statute as written. Clearly, the term "residence" as used in the name change statute is "neither synonymous [with] nor interdependent [of]" (Matter of Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc 2d 1006, 1007 [1980]) the legal residency construct fashioned by Civil Court in denying petitioner relief under the statute. To be distinguished is Matter of Beals, 40 Misc 3d 61 (2013), in which we recognized the court's authority to require a name change applicant to produce evidence tending to confirm "the accuracy of ... pertinent background and pedigree information required to be disclosed" under the name change statute (at 62)(emphasis added).
We note as well that other jurisdictions have construed their name change statutes to apply to non-citizens. In Matter of M.L. Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc.2d 1006, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387 (Civ.Ct.1980), an “alien from Russia,” who had refugee status, applied for a name change, explaining to the court that the Soviet government had forced her to assume the surname “Novogorodskaya,” which referred to her ethnic background. Id. at 388.
deemed reasonable and proper if the application does not violate any other overriding public policy considerations." Id., citing In re Application of Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc.2d 1006, 1007, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387 (1980). Courts also should consider whether an applicant's name change will carry a "potential for fraud, particularly where it could lead to financial abuse or misrepresentation in society."
In re Name Change of Handley, 107 Ohio Misc.2d 24, 27, 736 N.E.2d 125 (P.C.2000), citing Marshall v. Florida, 301 So.2d 477, 477-478 (Fla.App.1974). "Furthermore, an application will be deemed reasonable and proper if the application does not violate any other overriding public policy considerations." Id., citing In re Application of Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc.2d 1006, 1007, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387 (1980). Courts also should consider whether an applicant's name change will carry a "potential for fraud, particularly where it could lead to financial abuse or misrepresentation in society."
The appellant has cited many opinions from different jurisdictions for the proposition that an individual has broad rights under the common law to choose the name by which he or she will be known. These include cases in which the courts have affirmed legal changes of name for inmates, In re Cruchelow, 926 P.2d 833, 834 (Utah 1996); In Re Application of Knight, 537 P.2d 1085 (Colo.App. 1975), and for non-citizen resident aliens or refugees, Application of Pirlamarla, 504 A.2d 1238, 1241 (N.J. Superior Law Ct. 1985); In re Novogorodskaya, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y. Civic. Ct. 1980). We in no way dispute the validity of this general proposition.
"Any person, including an alien, should be allowed to change his name in good faith as he desires, provided such change would not violate any statutory provision or overriding public policy." ( Matter of Novogorodskaya, 104 Misc 2d 1006, 1007 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1980].) In the instant matter, as indicated, petitioner submits no proof that he is a permanent resident of the United States.
Smith v. United States Casualty Co., 197 N.Y. 420 (1910). In Matter of Novogorodoskaya, 104 Misc.2d 1006, 1007 (Civ Ct, Kings County 1980) the court held: "Any person, including an alien, should be allowed to change his name in good faith as he desires, provided such change would not violate any statutory provision or overriding public policy."
It is well established that one does not need permission of the court to change one's name. (Smith v United States Cas. Co., 197 NY 420 [1910].) In Matter of Novogorodskaya (104 Misc 2d 1006, 1007 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1980]), the court held: "Any person, including an alien, should be allowed to change his name in good faith as he desires, provided such change would not violate any statutory provision or overriding public policy." In addition, public policy favors the court's granting of name change applications because this process makes the change of name a matter of public record.
Furthermore, an application will be deemed reasonable and proper if the application does not violate any other overriding public policy considerations. In re Application of Novogorodskaya (1980), 104 Misc.2d 1006, 1007, 429 N.Y.S.2d 387, 388. The court finds that there is an economic value to the name of Santa Claus.