Papers Numbered Petitioner’s Name Change Application, October 6, 2022, Exhibits Attached 1 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order is as follows: Petitioner’s Name Change Application is hereby denied in its entirety. DISCUSSION Petitioner, Nancy Evelina Torres, also known as Nancy Evelina Torres-Amos, also known as Nancy Torres-Amos, a forty three (43) year old Staten Island resident and mother of five children ranging in age from eleven (11) to twenty (22), petitions this Court for leave to change her name to “JesusChrist Evilina Lucifer-Obama”. Name changes in the State of New York are governed by Civil Rights Law §63. Generally, pursuant to NY Civil Rights Law §63, adult individuals seeking to change their name by petitioning the Court, absent reasonable objection, are free to change their name as they see fit by order of the Court upon successful completion of an application requiring certain documentation. Courts reviewing these applications have very limited discretion to deny said applications. Courts are limited to determining whether the proposed name will be a source of instrumentality for fraud, evasion or interference with the rights of others, or be of such a nature that it confuses or misleads the general public. Matter of Nawadiuko, 37 Misc. 3d 1207(A)(Richmond County Civ. Ct. 2012); In re Carrasquillo, 2019 NYLJ LEXIS 3803 (Bronx County Civ. Ct. 2019); Hundreds, if not thousands, of Name Change Applications are filed in Richmond County Civil Court each year. These petitions are filed and are dispersed at random to judges for review on a rolling basis. In a rather unique legal circumstance, the Judge reviewing the application is not to consider the reason or motivation behind a name change. Unlike a traditional matter before the Court where the Court has the opportunity to hear the backstory leading up to a particular set of events, the Court considering a Name Change Application is merely charged with disceming whether the proposed name will be a source of fraud, evasion or interference with the rights of others or confuse or mislead the general public. The analysis for these two types of petitions is quite different. Applicants surreptitiously seeking to bamboozle the Court into effectuating their name change to defraud or evade another run the risk of having their application reviewed by Judges and Court Attorneys with investigative and prosecutorial backgrounds. Even with limited resources, these ill-intentioned applicants are exposed by use of various online public record searches and investigative tools. Petitioners seeking to avoid child support payments, liens, judgments, orders of protection or the negative consequences of criminal histories are estopped from doing so based on the diligent investigative research of the Court in considering the application. While those types of applications involve a more standardized and methodical approach to the review process, applications for name changes that could interfere with the rights of others or confuse or mislead the general public pose a more challenging feat. These applications involve a more philosophical inquisition. What does it mean for a name to interfere with the rights of others? How can a name confuse or mislead the public? Does it stand to reason that a name may confuse, mislead, or interfere with the rights of some and not others? Certainly, these are not easy questions to answer. Each application of this ilk shall be reviewed on an individual basis. The Petitioner in the instant matter before the Court seeks to assume the name “JesusChrist Evilina Lucifer-Obama”. The Court in no way casts aspersions, nor does it interject its own moral, philosophical, or religious belief on this choice of proposed name. The analysis of whether the Court will effectuate this name change is purely secular. The Court looks at the proposed first name “JesusChrist” and part of the last name “Lucifer”. The additional elements of the proposed name, “Evilina” and “Obama” do not pose the same apparent issue. Petitioner’s legal middle name is already Evelina and this change is simply a minor deviation from that name. Whether the Petitioner seeks to change the spelling of that name to accentuate the pronunciation of her current name to her desire or to portray a devilish personality trait is immaterial to the Court. Next, research shows, “Obama”, in addition to being the surname of a former U.S. President, is also an ancient Kenyan word. It is not readily apparent that Petitioner is seeking to use this name to mislead or confuse the public into thinking that she is in fact a member of the former President’s family. With regard to the proposed first name “JesusChrist” and part of the last name “Lucifer”, the religious connections with these names are obvious. Whether one is a follower of a religious faith is irrelevant as the names “Jesus Christ” and “Lucifer” have historical connotations to both believers and non-believers. The Court must simply look at the effect on the rights of another in the context of a scenario where the Court grants Petitioner’s application and a member of the public is then expected to call the Petitioner by her legal name, “JesusChrist Evilina Lucifer-Obama”. It is reasonable to believe that a follower of a religious faith would take umbrage with calling someone “JesusChrist”, especially when paired with the name “Lucifer”. While it may not be so apparent that someone would be confused or misled into believing that the Petitioner is in fact the real “JesusChrist” or “Lucifer”, it is the impact on the public’s rights that concerns the Court. These names on their own suggest a reaction that the public is to have. By assuming the name “JesusChrist”, is one expected to praise you? On the other hand by assuming the name “Lucifer”, is one expected to avoid or reject you? Are you claiming to be the Son of God or Prince of Darkness? Are you forcing a non-believer in either of these entities to accept the existence of these entities? Allowing this name change would place unwitting members of the public in the position of having to proclaim Petitioner’s religious beliefs which may or may not be in agreement with that person’s own beliefs. Matter of Nawadiuko, 37 Misc.1207(A) (Richmond County Civ. Ct. 2012) (deny petitioner’s application to change his last name to “ChristIsKing”). Calling such a name can cause other to feel as though petitioner has a higher title of authority and is a message of prospective harm, causing alarm or panic, and leading to more public distress than satisfaction to the petitioner. In re Carrasquillo, 2019NYLJ LEXIS 3083 (Bronx County Civ. Ct. 2019) (denying petitioner’s application to change his name to “Jesus God Satan Lugos”). Additionally, the pairing of these names suggest a mockery of another’s religion as if to say that a figure one worships is analogous to a figure that same person rejects. Intolerance toward another’s religious beliefs, including the mere suggestion of the same, is not what the United States of America was founded upon and certainly not something this Court will legally order. Whether this interference with the rights of another impacts one person the Petitioner interacts with or if it impacts every person the Petitioner interacts with is inconsequential. As stated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” It is the decision of the Court that Petitioner’s proposed name change poses too great of a risk of interference with the rights of others by causing undue alarm and public distress. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Petitioner’s application for name change is hereby denied. This constitutes the final Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: November 3, 2022
