Anonymous v. Irving Mellon
New York Supreme Court
91 Misc. 2d 375 (1977)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
The New York Health Code was amended in 1971 to allow for new birth certificates to be issued in cases in which individuals had legally changed their names and undergone convertive (gender-reassignment) surgeries. Pursuant to this guidance, the Vital Records Department of the New York City Department of Health (the health department) began a practice of issuing amended birth certificates with new names, but it omitted any reference to sex on the new certificates. In 1945 the petitioner (plaintiff) was issued a birth certificate designating the sex as male at the time of birth. The petitioner was raised as male, but struggled with gender identity throughout life. In 1975 the petitioner underwent gender-reassignment surgery, after which she was anatomically a woman. After legally changing her name, the petitioner received a new passport from the United States Department of State. The petitioner requested a new birth certificate from the health department with her new name and listing her sex as female. The health department issued a new birth certificate bearing her new name, without any reference to sex. The petitioner sought an order directing Irving Mellon (defendant), director of the health department, to issue the requested new birth certificate, or alternatively, a new certificate reflecting that the petitioner had undergone a sex change.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greenfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.