Matter of Bishop

[*1] Matter of Bishop 2006 NY Slip Op 50274(U) [11 Misc 3d 1058(A)] Decided on February 15, 2006 Supreme Court, New York County Suarez, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 15, 2006
Supreme Court, New York County

In the Matter of Robbie Bishop, For Leave to Assume the Name Robbie.



116952/2005

Lucindo Suarez, J.

Application of Robbie Bishop, pursuant to Civil Rights Law Article 6, for an order changing her name from Robbie Bishop to Robbie is denied.

Petitioner seeks an order pursuant to Civil Rights Law Article 6 authorizing her to assume the single name "Robbie." Civil Rights Law §63 provides in pertinent part, "If the court to which the petition is presented is satisfied thereby that the petition is true, and that 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." (Emphasis supplied.)

It is well settled that, absent fraud or misrepresentation, a person has the right at common law to assume any name she chooses. See Civil Rights Law §65(4); Smith v. United States Cas. Co., 197 NY 420, 90 N.E. 947 (1910). The history of the origins and use of surnames is adequately discussed in Smith. The confusion and burdens associated with the court-ordered use of a single name are amply discussed in Matter of Miller, 162 Misc 2d 527, 617 N.Y.S.2d 1024 (Civil Court, NY Co. 1994) and in Application of Douglas, 60 Misc 2d 1057, 304 N.Y.S.2d 558 (Sup. Ct., NY Co. 1969). As the court in Douglas ruled, this court sees no compelling need to set a precedent by judicially sanctioning the use of a single name. That there may be many people with the same surname and even the same given name and middle name does not provide a valid reason to set a precedent which could have overwhelming untoward consequences. For example, if 100,000 New York residents decided to change their name to "John," we would be reverting to a time when the creation of surnames would be a necessity. See Smith v. United States Cas. Co., supra. While petitioner has cited a New Jersey decision which holds to the contrary, Application of Ferner, 295 N.J. Super. 409, 685 A.2d 78 (Superior Court, Law Division 1996), this court finds the reasoning of the New York courts more persuasive.

That petitioner has had no stated difficulties in utilizing the single name "Robbie" in her dealings with banks, credit companies, medical providers, vendors and the United States Postal Service, does not establish that there is no reasonable objection to the proposed name change by other agencies, institutions and businesses which may be affected by the court-sanctioned name change. Petitioner's desire to cease using the surname of her former spouse is not a basis for granting the petition, since Civil Rights Law §65(2) permits her to resume the use of her former [*2]surname and she also has the common law right to utilize the single name "Robbie" as discussed above, and as she has been doing for several years.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated:February 15, 2006

ENTER: ________________________________

Lucindo Suarez, J.S.C.