“One and the Same” (OATS) Orders in Italian Dual Citizenship Cases
New York Supreme Court Denies Petitioner’s Request for “One and the Same” Order to Address Name Discrepancies in Public Records
Apostille certified translations of U.S. vital records are required for dual citizenship by descent applications. For such an application to be approved by the Italian government, the spelling of the names in the U.S. vital records and in the immigration and naturalization records must match the spelling of the names in the foreign-born ancestors’ vital records from the old country. In a recent case Matter of Hudson, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 24251 (Sup. Ct., Kings County Sept. 24, 2024) involving a petitioner seeking recognition of Italian heritage for dual citizenship purposes, the New York Supreme Court was asked to determine whether it has the authority to issue “one and the same” (OATS) orders. These orders aim to confirm that discrepancies in public records—such as variations in names—refer to the same individuals. The petitioner, Cynthia Murriello Hudson, sought to resolve inconsistencies in her father’s and grandparents’ names across various documents to satisfy the Republic of Italy’s requirements for claiming jure sanguinis, Italian citizenship by descent. However, the court ultimately denied the application, citing a lack of statutory authority and jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This case highlights the procedural and jurisdictional challenges faced by courts in addressing such requests as well as the challenges faced by individuals navigating the process of obtaining dual citizenship.
Challenges in Hudson’s Application for a Declaratory Judgment on Name Discrepancies
The petitioner’s primary goal was to resolve discrepancies in names on public records to demonstrate her lineage for an Italian citizenship application. Hudson’s argument rested on Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3001, which governs declaratory judgments, and she presented various exhibits to address minor spelling differences and the anglicization (or americanization) of Italian names in historical documents. These name variations are common in records involving immigrants and their descendants.
Despite her efforts, the court identified several procedural and substantive issues with Hudson’s application. For example:
1. Absence of Respondents: Hudson did not name any respondents, such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, as parties to the proceeding. Without a respondent to contest the claims, the court questioned whether a legitimate controversy existed.
2. Use of a Special Proceeding: The petitioner’s choice of a special proceeding raised procedural concerns. While CPLR 103(c) allows the court to convert improperly formatted proceedings, the court noted that this approach would not resolve the underlying jurisdictional issues.
3. No Statutory Basis: The court emphasized that no statute explicitly authorizes the issuance of a “one and the same” order in a special proceeding. Without a clear legal foundation, the court was reluctant to grant relief.
These issues collectively underscored the procedural and legal barriers preventing the court from ruling in Hudson’s favor.
Declaratory Relief and Justiciable Controversies
CPLR 3001 permits courts to issue declaratory judgments to resolve actual controversies involving genuine disputes. However, it does not authorize advisory opinions or rulings on hypothetical matters. Courts in New York have long held that judicial decisions must address concrete disputes with immediate legal consequences. Precedent affirms that declaratory judgments require:
• An Actual Controversy: The dispute must involve genuine, substantial issues between two or more parties.
• Definitive Prejudice: The plaintiff must demonstrate direct and concrete harm.
In Hudson’s case, the court found no actual controversy. Her petition aimed to support her Italian dual citizenship application by persuading the Italian government to recognize her lineage. However, no party—such as a government agency—disputed her claims about her ancestors’ identities. As a result, any court ruling would lack immediate legal effect and constitute a hypothetical, non-binding opinion.
The court’s decision aligns with prior rulings emphasizing that declaratory relief is inappropriate where there is no genuine dispute. In New York Public Interest Research Group v. Carey, for example, the court noted that judicial determinations must have a concrete impact and cannot resolve hypothetical questions or matters of curiosity.
Divergent Case Law on “One and the Same” Orders
There appears to be divergent case law in New York concerning “one and the same orders.” Here are some examples of OATS cases and their outcomes – some of which the Hudson cited in its decision.
There have been several cases in which courts granted similar relief or granted it in part.
• In Severo v. New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene (2019), the court issued a “one and the same” order based on CPLR 3001.
• In Matter of Peter Magri, Jr. (2021), another court granted a similar order without citing statutory authority.
• In Albanese v NY State Dept. of Health (2021), a petition was granted in part.
• In Makaron v NY City Dept. of Health (2022), an Article 78 proceeding in which the petitioner sought amendment of grandparents’ and parents’ marriage certificates was allowed.
• In Phillips v NY State Dept. of Health (2022), another Article 78 proceeding seeking release of vital records for an Italian dual citizenship application was granted.
The court noted one decision:
• In Matter of Esposito v. New York State Dept. of Health, the agency was directed to amend its records to reflect a different form of the names of various people of Italian ethnicity, but there was no citation to statutory authority.
However, other cases denied relief. For example:
• In Granese v. New York State Dept. of Health (2023), the court denied a request to amend records, emphasizing that declaratory relief under CPLR 3001 requires a justiciable controversy.
• In Spiezia, v. New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene Bureau of Vital Records (2022), a petition to make various changes to vital records and for a “one and the same order” for an Italian citizenship application was denied.
• In Lamp v. Vasan (2022), the court rejected an application for a “one and the same” order, noting that such requests involve no actual controversy and affect only the relationship between the petitioner and a foreign government. Additionally, not all of the government agencies involved were parties in the suit.
• In McGrath v. New York State Dept. of Health (2020), an Article 78 proceeding, in which petitioner requested the creation and issuance of 12 long-form birth certificates for his grandfather, was denied because petitioner did not show a clear legal right to the relief requested.
Finally, in Matter of Michael S. Singer, v NY State Dept. of Health (2018), plaintiff seeking records of his great-grandmother for purposes of a dual citizenship application was required to resubmit the petition.
Courts that deny such orders often cite concerns about jurisdiction, statutory authority, and the potential downstream effects of modifying historical records. For instance, altering vital records could create inconsistencies in family documentation, leading to disputes over inheritance, property, or paternity.
The court pointed to the decision in Nostrand v. Defendant, where the court noted the lack of appellate authority supporting the issuance of a “one and the same” order under CPLR § 3001. In Nostrand, the court discussed that the petitioner cited various decisions from jurists of co-ordinate jurisdiction, but those cases only established that sufficient evidence was presented, without providing a legal basis for such relief. The Nostrand court concluded that neither the plain language of CPLR § 3001 nor the practice commentary support granting this type of relief, and its search for relevant case law found no appellate authority to do so. The court in Hudson’s case determined that it also lacked the authority to grant the requested relief.
Procedural and Legislative Gaps
Hudson’s case underscores the challenges posed by the lack of clear statutory authority for “one and the same” orders. Courts must balance the interests of petitioners seeking relief with the broader implications of granting such requests. Key concerns include:
1. Jurisdictional Limits: Courts must operate within the boundaries of their authority. Without explicit legislative authorization, granting relief in cases like Hudson’s risks exceeding judicial powers.
2. Potential Consequences: Modifying historical records could create legal ambiguities. For example, altering names in vital records might impact future claims related to estates, property, or familial relationships.
3. Legislative Solutions: The court suggested that the New York Legislature consider enacting laws to address requests for “one and the same” orders. A statutory framework could provide clarity and consistency, ensuring that such requests are handled appropriately.
Broader Implications for Dual Citizenship Applications
The decision in Hudson’s case highlights the procedural hurdles faced by individuals seeking dual citizenship. Many countries, including Italy, require applicants to provide consistent documentation of their lineage. However, discrepancies in historical records often arise due to variations in spelling and translation, anglicization of names by immigrants, and errors in record-keeping.
While courts in some jurisdictions have issued orders to address these discrepancies, the lack of appellate authority in New York leaves lower courts divided on the issue. Petitioners must navigate a patchwork of rulings, with outcomes varying depending on the court and judge.
The New York Supreme Court’s denial of Cynthia Murriello Hudson’s application for a “one and the same” order reflects the limits of judicial authority in addressing dual citizenship documentation issues. Without a statutory basis for granting such relief, the court emphasized its responsibility to adhere to established legal principles and avoid issuing advisory opinions.
This case highlights the absence of a clear legal framework for resolving disputes related to discrepancies in public records. In the absence of legislative guidance, individuals seeking dual citizenship may encounter challenges in addressing such discrepancies and courts will continue to grapple with the procedural and jurisdictional complexities of these cases.
Contact All Language Alliance, Inc. to hire a genealogist who specializes in Italian dual citizenship; to retrieve ancestral vital records from Italy and from other countries; to request Apostille services for U.S. documents to be used as evidence in dual citizenship applications; to obtain certified translation of Apostille records from English to Italian; Polish; Spanish; French; Romanian; Croatian; Lithuanian; Danish; Czech; Slovak; Hungarian, and other foreign languages.
#alllanguagealliance #certifiedtranslation #Apostilletranslation #Italiantranslation #juresanguinis #citizenshipbydescent #OATS #OneandtheSameOrder #dualcitizenship #Article78Proceedings #Apostilletranslation #certifiedItaliantranslation
Up Next: Lao Translation & Lao Interpreter Services to Prove a Death in Laos