Papers considered in review of this petition are as follows: Petition for Individual Name Change, Petitioner’s Birth Certificate, Petitioner’s Social Security Card, Petitioner’s Identification from the Department of Motor Vehicle and Petitioner’s Bank Statement. Benjamin Carrasquillo Jr. (“Petitioner”) has filed an application to change his name pursuant to Article 6 of the Civil Rights Law. Petitioner seeks to legally change his name to (First) Jesus (Middle) God Satan (Last) Lugos. In his petition, “The insignificance of the current full name” is listed as the reason to change petitioner’s name. For the reasons cited herein, the application is denied. Under New York State law, adult persons may petition the court for a name change. If there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed, then the court shall make an order authorizing the petitioner to assume the name proposed. N.Y.C.L.S Civ. R. §63 (emphasis added). Prior to the statutory name change law, there has always been a common law right to change a name as long as the change was not done for fraudulent or deceitful purposes, to evade responsibility, avoid an obligation or to interfere with the rights of others. See, In re Conde, 186 Misc. 2d 785 (Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2000). Courts have found that it is for the court to determine how or if the proposed name change interferes with the rights of others or violates public policy. See, In the Matter of Thompson, 82 Misc. 2d 460 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1975). Courts have interpreted the legislation as intending such oversight due to the requirement of court intervention, rather than the implementation of a strictly ministerial action by the court’s clerk. See, In re Bobrowich, 2003 WL 230701, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 50025(U) (Civ. Ct. Richmond Co. January 6, 2003). This Court finds these interpretations as valid and adopts same in its review of the name change application at issue. Petitioner seeks to change his name to Jesus God Satan. In its evaluation of this name change, the Court cannot ignore the cultural context in which it arises. The proposed application of the term Jesus God Satan as a first name is a clear invocation of certain norms and well-known tenets of the Christian faith. Civil Rights Law Article 6, provides no guidance to the court. “By bringing an application pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, the petitioner seeks to attach the imprimatur of the court to that individual’s political philosophy, something that is beyond the scope and function of a neutral, blind justice system. The Court could just as “blindly” sign each and every application to change a name that comes before it. However, as stated above, if that were the legislative intent, it would be an administrative process and not a judicial one. For instance, the issuance of a birth certificate is considered a ministerial function; there is no judicial intervention initially required and no review of the “appropriateness” of a child’s birth name (Public Health Law Article 41). See, In the Matter of Thompson, 82 Misc. 2d 460 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1975). As stated in In re Bobrowich, the legislature has provided guidance in some situations involving corporate names and license plates issued by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. Since the legislature has not given the court guidance under the Civil Rights Law, the Court is tasked with using standards outlined in the common law to render its decisions. The Court finds that the calling of such a name can cause those in the immediate vicinity to feel as if petitioner’s claim to such a higher title of authority is a message of prospective harm, which would cause alarm or panic. The proposed name would cause more distress to the public than satisfaction to petitioner. While the Court acknowledges petitioner’s wish to observe the religious obligations he believes apply to him, the Court cannot grant petitioner’s wishes in such a manner that presents a danger to society. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: July 9, 2019
