Wilson v. Kilkenny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Kilkenny

44 A.D.3d 676, 841 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.3d 676 (Wilson v. Kilkenny) 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

Wilson v. Kilkenny, 44 A.D.3d 676, 841 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Civil Rights Law article 6 for leave to change an infant’s surname, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 15, 2006, as denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the petitioner, the father of a child born out of wedlock, failed to establish that his child’s interest will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his and that there is no reasonable objection to the proposed name change (see Matter of David Robert T., 10 AD3d 453 [2004]; Matter of Cinquemani v Guarino, 290 AD2d 554 [2002]; Matter of Mercado v Townsend, 225 AD2d 555 [1996]; Matter of Shawn Scott C., 134 AD2d 345 [1987]). Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1152(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50866(U) (2006).]

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 petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated May 15, 2006, as denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the petitioner, the father of a child born out of wedlock, failed to establish that his child’s interest will be substantially promoted by changing the child’s surname to his and that there is no reasonable objection to the proposed name change (see Matter of David Robert T., 10 AD3d 453 [2004]; Matter of Cinquemani v Guarino, 290 AD2d 554 [2002]; Matter of Mercado v Townsend, 225 AD2d 555 [1996]; Matter of Shawn Scott C., 134 AD2d 345 [1987]). Spolzino, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1152(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50866(U) (2006).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 676, 841 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-kilkenny-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack