In re Seif

40 Misc. 2d 596, 243 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1653
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 10, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 40 Misc. 2d 596 (In re Seif) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Seif, 40 Misc. 2d 596, 243 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1653 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1963).

Opinion

Robert Doscher, J.

Petitioner brings this proceeding to change the names of her two children by a previous marriage. The petitioner and respondent, the natural father of the infants, both under the age of 14 years, were divorced in the State of Illinois in 1962. Subsequently, the mother removed to New York State and married her present spouse on June 30, 1963. Her present spouse has one child.

Petitioner claims that by reason of the fact that the three children will be going to school together, the other children will consider them brothers; and if two children are called by one surname, and the other by another surname, this will cause a great deal of embarrassment.

The respondent, in order to avail himself of his right of visitation granted by the Illinois court, gave up his job and residence in Illinois and moved to New York. Due to petitioner’s attempt to deprive him of his right of visitation, the respondent was forced to bring a habeas corpus proceeding in this court and obtained an order on July 3, 1963, permitting him visitation rights.

Respondent expresses great love for his children and a desire that his progeny carry on his name. The petitioner shows no compelling reason at this time for the change of name.

It has been held that a father cannot be arbitrarily deprived of his right to have his children use his name, unless it is in the [597]*597interest of the children that such change be made (Galanter v. Galanter, 133 N. Y. S. 2d 266). The allegation that there might be embarrassment and the implied convenience to the petitioner, is not sufficient cause to change the children’s names. Motion denied.

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

Related

Keegan v. Gudahl
525 N.W.2d 695 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
Good v. Stevenson
113 Misc. 2d 270 (NYC Family Court, 1982)
Carroll Ex Rel. Johnson v. Johnson
565 S.W.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1978)
Petition for Change of Name of Harris
236 S.E.2d 426 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1977)
In re Change of Name of Harris to Strubble
236 S.E.2d 426 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1977)
In re Keach
51 Misc. 2d 1097 (New York County Courts, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Misc. 2d 596, 243 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seif-nysupct-1963.