# Brooks v. New York State Dept. of Health

> New York Supreme Court, Monroe County · August 11, 2025 · 2025 NY Slip Op 32734(U)

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122304

## Case

- **Court:** New York Supreme Court, Monroe County
- **Decided:** August 11, 2025
- **Citations:** 2025 NY Slip Op 32734(U)
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Jr. James E. Walsh
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122304

## Opinion text

Brooks v New York State Dept. of Health
2025 NY Slip Op 32734(U)
August 11, 2025
Supreme Court, Monroe County
Docket Number: Index No. E2025015807
Judge: James E. Walsh, Jr.
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2025 05:25 PM INDEX NO. E2025015807
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2025

At a Term of the Supreme Court, in
and for the County of Monroe,
Rochester, New York.

SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NEW YORK : MONROE COUNTY
__________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER HUBBARD BROOKS AND
WENDY HAMMOND BROOKS,
Plaintiffs, DECISION & ORDER
-vs-
INDEX No.: E2025015807
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
VITAL RECORDS SECTION AND MONROE COUNTY
CLERK’S OFFICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

Attorney for Plaintiffs: Salene Kraemer, Esq.
314 Old Farm Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15228

Attorney for Defendant, Michael Pitcher, Esq.
New York State Department of NYS Attorney General’s Office
Health, Vital Records Section: 144 Exchange Boulevard, Ste. 200
Rochester, NY 14614

Attorney for Defendant, Robert Shoemaker, Esq.
Monroe County Clerk’s Office: Monroe County Law Department
39 West Main Street
Rochester, NY 14614

James E. Walsh, Jr., J.

Plaintiffs Christopher Hubbard Brooks and Wendy Hammond Brooks, having moved this

Court by way of an Order to Show Cause filed July 17, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc. #2), seek an order

affirming discrepancies contained within certain vital records, and supporting their applications

for digital nomad visas (NYSCEF Docs. #1 – 16, 19-21), and

1 of 2
[* 1]
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2025 05:25 PM INDEX NO. E2025015807
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2025

Defendant Monroe County Clerk’s Office having not opposed the petition, but noting that

“the proposed order does not appear to have any direct effect on the Clerk’s Office, nor does the

petition appear to seek any relief from the Clerk’s Office itself”, and directing the Court’s attention

to Matter of Hudson in which “a court of coordinate authority held that it lacked jurisdiction over

a request for a “one and the same order” due in part to the lack of a justiciable controversy, and

dismissed the matter (Attorney Correspondence to the Court dated 08/06/25, NYSCEF Doc. #18,

citing 85 Misc.3d 567 [Sup. Ct. Kings County 2024]), and

Defendant New York State Department of Health having declined to take a position, noting

that “it is not within the Department’s discretion or authority to resolve a request for a “one and

the same” order” (Attorney Affirmation dated 08/06/25, NYSCEF Doc. #22.), and

Now, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause and supporting motion

papers, as well as the positions of the Defendants, and upon due deliberation thereon, the Court

hereby finds that the Plaintiffs have provided insufficient legal authority, and this Court found no

legal authority, statutory, caselaw, or otherwise, permitting this Court to grant the requested relief.

Moreover, even if this Court had the discretionary authority to approve such an Order, this Court

finds the submitted proof to be insufficient.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause for an Order Affirming Discrepancies

in Support of Application for Digital Nomad Visas is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that any other relief requested, not specifically addressed by this Order, is

denied.

Dated: August 11, 2025
HON. JAMES E. WALSH, JR.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

2 of 2
[* 2]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11122304. Public record. Not legal advice.