Green, Application of

• Decision Date: 22 September 1967
• Citation: 283 N.Y.S.2d 242,54 Misc.2d 606
• Parties: Application of Earl GREEN, for leave to assume the name of: Merwon Abdul Salaam, Petitioner.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 242

283 N.Y.S.2d 242

54 Misc.2d 606

Application of Earl GREEN, for leave to assume the name of:

Merwon Abdul Salaam, Petitioner.

Civil Court of City of New York.

Sept. 22, 1967.

Bernard S. Greenbaum, Brooklyn, for petitioner.

MAURICE WAHL, Judge.

Petitioner is an American-born citizen over twenty-seven years of age and is employed in a nursing home in the city of New York. He seeks not only to disavow the faith and tenets of his church and his forebears but also his patronymic. Hence he now applies for judicial approval for the renunciation of his natal appellation, Earl Green, pursuant to section 60 et seq. of the Civil Rights Law, and desires to be known as Merwon Abdul Salaam because he has embraced the Islamic faith.

A cursory research into the name which the applicant desires to assume indicates that Merwon is the name of a well-known caliph, the spiritual and civil head of a Moslem state, Abdul is a servant of God, and the cognomen Salaam denotes an oriental saluation made with a low bow and the word itself is derived from the Hebraic noun Shalom, meaning peace.

The contention advanced by the petitioner, that great confusion and unnecessary explanations among his friends and newly discovered religionists will result if he is known by two different names, is without merit. Confusion will be caused in any event by the assumption of a name which is so unlike his own.

The Constitution permits complete freedom of religion and worship, and whatever charm the new religiosity may have for him is not for this court to inquire; but to adopt such a strange and unfamiliar name gives one pause.

The constitutional right, however, bears no reasonable relationship to a change of name nor is a 'change of name * * * an essential part of the practice of religion' (see Application of Wing, 4 Misc.2d 840, 157 N.Y.S.2d 333). The pertinent sections of the Civil Rights Law are not the exclusive method of name change. The common law, in the absence of fraud or other like evasion of obligations, permits the free use of any name a person may choose. The proudest patronymic in the land is available to the lowliest individual, and this without anyone's permission. (Vide Kabotchnick, 2 N.Y.L.Rev., Jan., 1924, 'What's in a Name.') The statutory invocation is not mandatory; it is but a cumulative procedure and not a restriction. Application of Wing, supra; Lana v. Brennan, Sup., 124 N.Y.S.2d 136; Matter of Jama, 51 Misc.2d 9, 272 N.Y.S.2d 677, where a similar application to prefix Von to the surname, was denied by this court; Matter of Filoramo, 40 Misc.2d 598, 243 N.Y.S.2d 339; Matter of Cohen, 163 Misc. 795, 297 N.Y.S. 905; Matter of Johns, 29 Misc.2d 31, 212 N.Y.S.2d 146; Matter of Weinberg, N.Y.L.J., page 19, col. 7, August 30th, 1967. For a comprehensive and historical review on this subject see Smith v. United States Casualty Co., 197 N.Y. 420, 90 N.E. 947, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 1167; In re Snook, 2 Hilt. 566.

Variant decisions on this type of application are neither...