Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this application: Papers Numbered Petition 1 Supporting Documentation 2 DECISION/ORDER The application for Change of Name is denied without prejudice for the following reason(s): Petitioner brings the instant application to change her name from “LATIFAH LAGUERRE” to “LATIFAH VEDA X.” In 2020, the Petitioner brought a similar application to change her name to “LATIFAH X” (See NC-7-20/RI). The prior application was denied by the Hon. Sharon A. Bourne-Clarke, by a decision and order dated March 3, 2020. In her decision, Judge Bourne-Clarke found that changing the Petitioner’s last name to “X” would “likely create possible confusion and also exposes petitioner to a greater risk for identify fraud.” Petitioner appealed the order, which was denied by the Appellate Term on September 29, 2020. The Court first considers the Petitioner’s application to change her last name to “X.” The Court finds that this application was previously decided by Judge Bourne-Clarke and that any further determination would violate the doctrine of the “law of the case.” The doctrine of the law of the case “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in [a] prior decision [of the court], and to the same questions presented in the same case” (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Gambino, 181 AD3d 558, 559 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Mosby v. Parilla, 140 AD3d 1129, 1130-1131 [2016]). This doctrine “articulates a sound policy that once an issue is judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as judges and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are concerned” (see Matter of Oyster Bay Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Town Bd. of Town of Oyster Bay, 21 AD3d 964, 966 [2005]; Mosby v. Parilla, 140 AD3d at 1130-1131). For these reasons, this Court will not reconsider what has already been decided by a jurist of this Court. The application of the Petitioner to change her last name to “X” is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. In the instant application, the Petitioner also requests that her middle name be changed to “VEDA.” This request was not part of the prior application decided by Judge Bourne-Clarke. Therefore, if the Petitioner still wishes to change her middle name, she is directed to file an amended petition that seeks solely the change of her middle name. The Court does not consider Petitioner’s unsworn letter that was attached to her application as part of its decision. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the portion of the Petition to change the Petitioner’s last name to “X” is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that the portion of the Petition to change the Petitioner’s middle name to “VEDA” is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and leave to renew in an amended petition; and it is further ORDERED that the temporary sealing of this matter is LIFTED. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: June 22, 2023
