Arnold v. Department of Health

174 A.D.2d 409, 571 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 409 (Arnold v. Department of Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arnold v. Department of Health, 174 A.D.2d 409, 571 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered February 20, 1990 which, inter alia, denied and dismissed the petition insofar as it sought an order directing respondent, New York City Department of Health, to issue new birth certificates for petitioner’s two daughters showing a change of surname and deleting therefrom the name of the children’s natural mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, ordered that the children "shall all have their names changed to be as [requested]” and directed respondent to issue new birth certificates for the children born in New York City. Even if the Maryland court’s order effected valid name changes and is given full faith and credit, it is not entitled to full faith and [410]*410credit to the extent it requires respondent to issue new birth certificates since the Maryland court lacked jurisdiction over respondent, and is therefore without power to direct respondent to perform an act. Moreover, to amend the birth certificate of a minor child, born in New York City, whose name is changed pursuant to court order requires both parents, or the surviving parent, to make an application to respondent. (See, New York City Health Code § 207.01.) Where, as here, the application is being made only by the father, who does not appear to be the sole surviving parent, respondent does not have the statutory authority to grant it. Furthermore, given that petitioner’s eldest daughter had already reached majority age when the petition was filed, the IAS court was correct in recommending that she should file for the appropriate relief on her own behalf. Concur—Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Angelino v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene
2025 NY Slip Op 07087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Johnson v. New York City Department of Health
257 A.D.2d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Phillips v. Consolidated Supply Co.
895 P.2d 574 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D.2d 409, 571 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-department-of-health-nyappdiv-1991.