In re D.R.G.

55 Misc. 3d 457, 51 N.Y.S.3d 329
CourtCivil Court of the City of New York
DecidedJuly 8, 2016
StatusPublished

This text of 55 Misc. 3d 457 (In re D.R.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City 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 D.R.G., 55 Misc. 3d 457, 51 N.Y.S.3d 329 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2016).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Alexander M. Tisch, J.

The applicant1 first came to this court seeking a name change from E.R.F. to R.A.G. An order of this court (d’Auguste, J.), [458]*458dated June 26, 2014, granted the application for a name change. R.A.G. now seeks a supplemental order, in compliance with Colorado law, to have the gender on his birth certificate changed from female to male in order to properly reflect his current gender. While the prior order permits the name listed on the birth certificate to be changed, the State of Colorado, unlike the State of New York,2 requires a court order considering medical records in order to change the gender on an individual’s birth certificate. New York’s less demanding standard was readily met with the notarized letter, signed under penalty of perjury, from K.L.R., DO, FACOS, dated March 21, 2016.3

Colorado, however, has a more rigorous burden of proof that requires a court order. Colorado’s statute expressly states:

“Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction indicating that the sex of an individual born in this state has been changed by surgical procedure and that such individual’s name has been changed, the certificate of birth of such individual shall be amended as prescribed by regulation.” (Colo Rev Stat Ann § 25-2-115 [4].)

In compliance with the standards of Colorado law, this court conducted a hearing on June 16, 2016 in which it considered the medical records of R.A.G. On March 16, 2016, at CKHS Surgery Center at Haverford, 2010 West Chester Pike No. 212, Havertown, PA 19083, K.L.R., DO, FACOS, performed gender [459]*459reassignment surgery. At this juncture, R.A.G. is deemed to be of the male gender.

In the interests of justice, the court grants the relief requested. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appropriate governmental agency, the Colorado Department of Health and Public Environment, or any other governmental agency that is responsible for maintaining the birth certificate for R.A.G. shall change the gender designation thereon from female to male.

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

Related

Todd v. Green
122 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Misc. 3d 457, 51 N.Y.S.3d 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-drg-nycivct-2016.