Office of the City Clerk v. Diaz
OATH Index No. 1088/09 (Dec. 18, 2008)
Prior to applying for a marriage license, respondent requested a
hearing to determine that she was not a party to a marriage in her
name. Evidence established that respondent has never been
married and was the victim of identity theft. Respondent's
application for a marriage license should be processed.
___________________________________________________
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Petitioner
- against STEPHANIE DIAZ
Respondent
___________________________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KARA J. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge
This is a non-traditional appeal, under section 3-03 of the City Clerk's rules, title 51 of
the Rules of the City of New York, from petitioner's preliminary denial of respondent's
application for a marriage license.
Respondent contacted petitioner because she had learned that someone had stolen her
identity and had gotten married under her name. Respondent has not applied for a marriage
application, but is attempting to resolve this matter in anticipation of an upcoming nuptial.
Petitioner reviewed its records and discovered that a prior marriage license had been issued to a
person with the same name and date of birth as respondent. Petitioner had no record that the
marriage had been terminated. See Dom. Rel. Law § 15 (authorizing city clerk to inquire and
determine whether applicant is entitled to a marriage license).
Respondent filed a request for a review of the prior marriage on September 18, 2008.
Petitioner initiated this proceeding on September 23, 2008, and respondent submitted an answer
on October 28, 2008. At a hearing on December 2, 2008, petitioner relied on documentary
evidence consisting of the March 21, 1997, marriage application and license (ALJ Ex. 1).
-2Respondent testified on her own behalf and relied upon documentary evidence, including police
complaints, public assistance records, New York City Housing Authority records, and Social
Security records (ALJ Ex. 2; Resp. Ex. A).
For the reasons provided below, I find by a preponderance of the credible evidence that
respondent is not the person who applied for and was issued the 1997 marriage license. I
recommend that when respondent applies for a marriage license her application be accepted for
filing and processed.
ANALYSIS
Under the Clerk's rules, petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the applicant should not be granted a marriage license. 51 RCNY § 3-03(b)(8); see
Office of the City Clerk v. Daskalakis, OATH Index No. 1086/07 (Apr. 26, 2007), aff'd, City
Clerk's Dec. (May 1, 2007). Petitioner has not met this burden. Instead, respondent presented
credible testimony, supported by convincing documentary evidence, that she is not the same
person who applied for and was granted the March 1997 marriage license.
The March 1997 marriage license was issued to Lorenzo Guevara and a person
purporting to be Stephanie Diaz. Respondent credibly testified that she did not know anyone
named Lorenzo Guevara and denied ever being married to anyone. Respondent pointed out a
number of irregularities on this 1997 marriage license and application (ALJ Ex. 2). The groom's
residence indicates that he lived in "Brooklyn, NJ" and the bride's residence indicates that she
lived in "Bronx, NJ." Respondent correctly stressed that both Brooklyn and the Bronx are
boroughs of New York City. Moreover, the birthplace for the bride's father is incorrect. The
1997 marriage license states that respondent's father was born in Puerto Rico. Respondent,
however, submitted her father's death certificate, which indicates that he was actually born in
Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands (Resp. Ex. A). In addition, the 1997 marriage license indicates that
the bride used a New Jersey driver's license as identification. Respondent credibly testified that
she was born in the Bronx and has lived there her entire life. She has never lived in New Jersey
nor obtained a New Jersey driver's license (Tr. 7).
In support respondent submitted her
daughter's birth certificate which demonstrates that she was living at 355 East 143rd Street,
Bronx, New York in July 1997 (Resp. Ex. A). Respondent additionally submitted documents
from New York City Housing Authority, indicating that she has lived in subsidized housing in
-3the Bronx since 1995 (Resp. Ex. A). This evidence credibly established that respondent was not
residing in New Jersey at the time in question.
In addition to the incorrect entries, respondent testified that there were differences
between her signature and the signature on the 1997 marriage license and application.
Respondent's signature is sharper, while the signature on the marriage license is looser with
loops in the "t" and "h." The person who signed the 1997 marriage license used circles to dot her
"i," while respondent does not (Tr. 11-12).
Respondent credibly testified that she was on public assistance in 1997. On October 2,
1997, her social worker informed her that the Human Resources Administration was going to
discontinue her public assistance because she had gotten married. Respondent immediately
reported the identity theft to the police (ALJ Ex. 1; Tr. 8). Two years after she filed a complaint
with the police, she started receiving telephone calls from creditors, who told her that she owed
money to several stores located in New Jersey. Respondent went back to the police and filed
another complaint (ALJ Ex. 1; Tr. 8).
She was also informed by the Social Security
Administration that in 1995, someone filed taxes in her name (Resp. Ex. A). Respondent was
unemployed in 1995 and did not file taxes. Respondent was understandably distressed and
frustrated that her identity had been stolen in 1995 and the matter has still not been resolved.
Respondent was unable to explain how her identity had been stolen. She theorized that it
may have been sold by an unethical government employee that works with birth records (Tr. 12).
Respondent's inability to prove how her identity had been stolen is of little consequence since
she very credibly established that it had indeed been stolen.
impressively thorough and organized defense.
Respondent presented an
She established glaring errors on the 1997
marriage application and license, which were corroborated by a birth certificate, a death
certificate, and documents from government offices, such as New York City Housing Authority
and the Social Security Administration. In addition, her testimony was detailed, straightforward
and unembellished.
Petitioner's counsel did not challenge respondent's credibility or
documentary evidence.
In sum, I found respondent to be a credible witness. Based upon her testimony, and the
supporting documentation, I find that respondent is not the same woman who was issued a
marriage license in 1997. Accordingly, if respondent files an application for a marriage license it
should be processed.
-4-
Kara J. Miller
Administrative Law Judge
December 18, 2008
SUBMITTED TO:
MICHAEL McSWEENEY
First Deputy and Acting City Clerk
APPEARANCES:
PATRICK L. SYNMOIE, ESQ.
Attorney for Petitioner
STEPHANIE DIAZ
Respondent, Pro Se