In re David Robert T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David Robert T.

10 A.D.3d 453, 780 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10377

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 453 (In re David Robert T.) 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

In re David Robert T., 10 A.D.3d 453, 780 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Civil Rights Law article 6 for leave to change an infant’s surname, the father appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J), dated September 19, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The father of the infant child born out of wedlock failed to establish that the child’s best interests will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his surname (see Civil Rights Law § 63). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition (see Matter of Cinquemani v Guarino, 290 AD2d 554 [2002]; Matter of Cassidy Lynn M., 289 AD2d 245, 246 [2001]; Matter of Mercado v Townsend, 225 AD2d 555 [1996]; Matter of Shawn Scott C., 134 AD2d 345 [1987]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Civil Rights Law article 6 for leave to change an infant’s surname, the father appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J), dated September 19, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The father of the infant child born out of wedlock failed to establish that the child’s best interests will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his surname (see Civil Rights Law § 63). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition (see Matter of Cinquemani v Guarino, 290 AD2d 554 [2002]; Matter of Cassidy Lynn M., 289 AD2d 245, 246 [2001]; Matter of Mercado v Townsend, 225 AD2d 555 [1996]; Matter of Shawn Scott C., 134 AD2d 345 [1987]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 453, 780 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-robert-t-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack