NY – NAME AND SEX CHANGE APPLICATION SEALED EVEN THOUGH NOT REQUESTED

Perhaps the court took this step, as the petitioner was pro se.

MATTER OF JW, 2025 NY Slip Op 25048 – NY: King Co.
City Court, Civil Court 2025:

“This Honorable Court Decides and Orders Sua Sponte, upon
Application of Petitioner JW identified as non-binary seeking
Declaratory Judgment for Name Change and Sex Designation to X, pursuant
to the Civil Rights Law §64-a and §67-b to Seal Court Records is hereby
under separate Sealed Order Granted.

Herein, Petitioner seeks a change of name and sex designation change
to X to coincide with their non-binary identification, in one of the
very limited matters in which this court sits as a court of equity
pursuant to the 2021 Gender Recognition Act of the Civil Rights Law
Article 6. In sitting as a court of equity in such ex-parte petition for
declaratory judgment “`the court may grant any type of relief within
its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded,
imposing such terms as may be just'”(Piccirilli v. Benjamin, 226 AD3d 1233, 1238 [3d Dept 2024]), citing State v. Barone, 74 NY2d 332 [1989]),
quoting CPLR 3017 [a]). There are broader considerations of the
underpinning legislative intent and history beyond the text of the black
letter law in decision-making of such declaratory judgments in equity.
Herein, the issue before this court is whether within its powers in
equity may sua sponte seal court records of a change of name and sex
designation pursuant to NY CLS Civ R §64-a and §67-b where Petitioner
does not seek the prayer of relief to seal. This is distinguished from
the recently decided matter in which the issue presented was as to the
unintended legislative internal inconsistency of the “totality of the
circumstances test” pursuant to NY CLS Civ R §64-a as applied to a
Transgender person who requests sealing (Matter of KA, 2025 NY Slip Op 50128[U]
[Civ Ct, Kings County 2025]). This Court is sensitive to not intend to
patronize, to not relegate to victimhood nor to detract from the outward
Pride of who they are as Transgender people. However, as a Court of
Equity, this Court has “the power to dispose of all matters at issue and
to grant complete relief in accordance with the equities of the case” (id. at 1237).

To grant full relief here, even where not demanded, requires
comprehensive consideration of grave matters of societal public safety
protections to Petitioner, not merely confined to this court’s
geographical jurisdiction. Rather, this Petition is indelible in
perpetuity for all to see not merely in Brooklyn, New York City but
extending nationally as well as globally. Petitioner’s safety in
Brooklyn does not necessarily extend to wherever the Transgender
person’s life may take them in the future. This is indeed a significant
life altering change for a member of a community that faces unfortunate
consequential public ridicule, discrimination and hate crimes.^[1]
Similarly to de jure decree that a Black slave is 3/5 of a human being
does not make it factually so, likewise, the de jure decree or edict of
the non-existence of Transgender people does not make it factually so.
However, such a de jure decree indeed further bolsters the need for
public safety protections of that denied demographic. Regardless of the
discriminatory de jure edict proclaiming the non-existence of
Transgender people, a hate crime against a Transgender person, like any
other crime, is against The People. NY CLS Civ R §67 statutorily
establishes the sex designation X, which is not universally accepted and
actually scorned and reviled in some sectors of society here and
abroad. It may be argued that sealing is contrary to a proud
Transgender, non-binary, or gender nonconforming person’s intent.
Historically, the Interracial demographic has statutorily been defined
to apply exclusively to Black and White mixed blood pursuant to
overruled miscegenation laws, which now have freedom of choice of racial
classification without criminal recrimination (see Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 2 [1967]). Prior to the landmark case, the de jure one- drop-rule^[2]
statutorily mandated the Interracial to be classified as the Black
demographic even though defied by immutable characteristics. Once
overturned, a non-Black appearing Interracial with no Black
characteristics may choose to openly and proudly publicly choose to
self-identify as such. Similarly, the Transgender, non-binary or gender
nonconforming person may also choose to live openly and proudly and
publicly choose to self-identify as such. Therefore, perhaps in choosing
the X gender marker in and of itself is intended to be open and proud.
Accordingly, this intent to not choose to seal is an extension and
reaffirmation of their proud identification. However, this court in
equity is tasked with the holistic implications of its decision upon
Petitioner, even where, as here, sealing of the court records is not
being demanded.

For the foregoing reasons, This Court Sitting In Equity,
notwithstanding that the relief of Sealing was not prayed for relief, in
the best interest, and what is just, and right, and good for Petitioner
JW’s Change of Name and Change of Sex Designation, pursuant to Civil
Rights Law §64-a, §67-b, the court records attendant thereto are hereby
Ordered Sealed, Sua Sponte.

This constitutes the opinion, order and decision of This Honorable Court.