Gallery Carre
Panel Approves Transgender Name Change Application
Dec 1st, 2025 by Viviane
By Joel Stashenko
New York Law Journal
November 28, 2008
ALBANY - A transgender individual should be allowed to legally assume a new name to reflect her identity as a woman, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In Matter of Earl William Golden III, 504992, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the finding of Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey A. Tait of Broome County. Justice Tait had dismissed Ms. Golden’s petition in May 2008 to formally change her name to Elisabeth Whitney Golden because the change from a traditional male name to a female name “is fraught with possible confusion.”
The decision will be published Thursday.
Justice Tait said that no matter how “sensitive the Court is to petitioner’s personal goals,” he was wary of “confusing or misleading the public in its dealings with petitioner.” The justice noted that Ms. Golden was free to exercise her common-law right to take any name she chooses as long as “fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with the rights of others” is not involved.
Justice Tait also noted in his ruling that Ms. Golden had declined to present medical or psychological evidence that she is undergoing an “irreversible or permanent” gender transition - a showing that Ms. Golden argued is not required by New York Civil Rights Law in a memorandum of law before the Third Department.
Justice Tait issued an ex parte order denying Ms. Golden’s petition.
Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona, writing for a unanimous appeals panel, held that under common law “a person may change his or her name at will so long as there is no fraud, misrepresentation or interference with the rights of others.” In addition, Civil Rights Law §63 empowers courts to authorize name changes if satisfied that “the petition is true, and that there is no reasonable objection to the change of name proposed,” the judge noted.
In the instant case, Justice Cardona wrote that “possible confusion” was not a sufficient basis for Justice Tait’s denial of Ms. Golden’s petition since “confusion is a normal concomitant of any name change.”
“Thus, under the particular circumstances herein and in the absence of factors inferring ‘fraud, misrepresentation or interference with the rights of others’ . . . we conclude that the petition should be granted,” Justice Cardona wrote.
In sending the petition back to Justice Tait, the Third Department directed that the language in the order changing Ms. Golden’s name should specify that the “name change order cannot be used as evidence that the gender of petitioner has been changed from male to female.”
Justices Edward O. Spain, Anthony J. Carpinello, Bernard J. Malone Jr. and Leslie E. Stein joined the ruling.
According to the decision, Ms. Golden first sought the name change in October 2007 to reflect her preference to be identified as a female.
Ms. Golden, 57, has been married since 1980. In her petition, she said she has been using the name “Elisabeth” in her personal life since 2004 and professionally since 2006.
Ms. Golden was represented by Franklin H. Romeo of the Manhattan-based Sylvia Rivera Law Project, which seeks to protect the right of self-determination of transgender and other “gender non-conforming” people. Mr. Romeo did not return a call for comment.