1

Office of the City Clerkv. Berrios

OATH Index No. 2158/07 (June 27, 2007)

Domestic partnership applicant appealed clerk’s denial of application based upon record of previous marriage of person with same name and birth date. Evidence found not to support likelihood that the applicants are the same persons and appeal granted.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

Petitioner

- against -

LAURA BERRIOS

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge

This is an appeal of the denial of a domestic partnership applicationby petitioner Office of the City Clerk to respondent Laura Berrios. The appeal is brought pursuant to section 4-03 of the rules of the City Clerk, published in title 51 of the Rules of the City of New York.

On June 6, 2006, respondent submitted an application for domestic partnership registration at the Clerk’s office in Brooklyn. In processing this application, petitioner’s staff found that a marriagelicense and certificate had been issued in 1996 to a person with the same name, same birth date, and same parents. Petitioner therefore notified respondent that her application would be rejected.

Effective October 20, 2006, petitioner promulgated rules permitting appeals of denials of marriage license and domestic partnership applications and later notified respondent that she would be permitted to seek such an appeal, if she chose. Respondent filed an appeal under this rule on May 15, 2007, and petitioner commenced this proceeding by serving and filing a petition (ALJ Ex. 1), attaching a copy of the 1996 license and application. Respondent then filed an answer (ALJ Ex. 2) on June 12, 2007, contending that she was never married to the man identified on the 1996 marriage license. She also offered a forensic handwriting report indicating that the signature on the 1996 license and certificate could not have been hers.

As discussed below, I find that respondent’s appeal should be granted and that her domestic partnership application should be accepted for filing.

ANALYSIS

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the evidence indicates that respondent is the same person named on the 1996marriage license. The persuasive proof offered by respondent on the issue convinces me that she is not the same person and that she should be permitted to register her domestic partnership.

The sole evidence in support of the Clerk’s decision denying the domestic partnership application is the 1996 marriage license application and marriage license. This shows that someone giving the same name, Laura Berrios, and the same birth date, was married at the clerk’s office in Brooklynon March 14, 1996, to a man named Camilo Hernandez.

The evidence submitted by respondent in her answer suggests numerous reasons for concluding that respondent is not the same individual who appeared at the Clerk’s office in 1996 and that this marriage was in fact fraudulent. According to the 1996 application, the woman who claimed to be Ms. Berrios provided only a “birth record” for identification and apparently did not produce any photo identification. The individual claiming to be Mr. Hernandez indicated that he was born in the Dominican Republic, raising at least the possibility that he might be marrying in order to gain citizenship. He gave his address as 48 Manahan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Respondent has provided proof via a search on the United States Postal Service web site showing that this address is invalid, although there is a “Menahan Street” in Brooklyn.

The witness who signed the 1996 marriage certificate was Stephanie Laboy, living at an address next to that of the bride. According to respondent, Ms. Laboywas respondent’s girlfriend from 1995 until early 1996. The relationship “did not end on good terms,” suggesting a motive for Ms. Laboy to create trouble for respondent if she could.

I myself noted that the handwriting and signature on the 1996 application appears different from the signature and handwriting of respondent in the answer in that the loops on the capital “L” and “B” are formed differently. Respondent submitted a report from Certified Forensic Examiner Dennis J. Ryan, who compared the signature on the 1996 license and application with 26 examples of respondent’s handwriting. He concluded, “with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” that respondent did not sign the 1996 application.

Under the Clerk’s rules, “[t]he City Clerk shall have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant should not be granted a domestic partnership.” 51 RCNY § 4-03(3)(h). In this case, based upon the evidence presented by respondent, I find that respondent was not the same individual who was issued a marriage license and marriage certificate in 1996. See Office of the City Clerk v. Daskalakis, OATH Index No. 1086/07 (Apr. 26, 2007).

Respondent’s appeal should therefore be granted and petitioner’s application for domestic partnership registration accepted.

John B. Spooner

Administrative Law Judge

June 27, 2007

SUBMITTED TO:

VICTOR L. ROBLES

City Clerk

APPEARANCES:

PATRICK SYNMOIE, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

LAURA BERRIOS

Pro Se