In re Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Scott

134 A.D.2d 345, 520 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50522

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 345 (In re Scott) 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 Scott, 134 A.D.2d 345, 520 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to change an infant’s surname, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered December 22, 1986, which denied the application without prejudice to renewal upon a showing of significant change in the parties’ circumstances.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner father of an infant born out of wedlock has failed to establish that his child’s interest will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his. There is also a reasonable objection to the change since the child lives with his mother and sharing her surname minimizes embarrassment, harassment, and confusion in school and social contacts (see, Civil Rights Law § 63; Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616, lv denied 64 NY2d 602; State of New York ex rel. Spence-Chapin Servs. v Tedeno, 101 Misc 2d 485). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to change an infant’s surname, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered December 22, 1986, which denied the application without prejudice to renewal upon a showing of significant change in the parties’ circumstances.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner father of an infant born out of wedlock has failed to establish that his child’s interest will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his. There is also a reasonable objection to the change since the child lives with his mother and sharing her surname minimizes embarrassment, harassment, and confusion in school and social contacts (see, Civil Rights Law § 63; Matter of Goldstein, 104 AD2d 616, lv denied 64 NY2d 602; State of New York ex rel. Spence-Chapin Servs. v Tedeno, 101 Misc 2d 485). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.2d 345, 520 N.Y.S.2d 821, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scott-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack