New York Proposes Rate Hikes to Thwart Genealogical Research

Over the years I’ve written about the difficulties in obtaining copies of vital records from the State of New York. The only way to receive a copy is to print out and physically mail a request, remit $22, then wait a few years for Albany to send a copy.

My latest orders have not been fulfilled. One year for the Cummings and Grant orders; three years for the Sheehy order.

New York claims a backlog of over 10,000 orders and that fulfilling them is almost impossible.

New York was able to figure out how to open the envelopes and cash the checks within weeks.

I suggested making the records digitally available online, which is what is happening with New York City records.

New York has responded. Their solution is to raise fees.

Memorandum in Support of these changes to pertinent New York laws

It is puzzling why Part U- the genealogical section of the Memorandum in Support of the proposed changed is called "Digitize Genealogical Records." Why called digitize? What is being digitized?

Raising the fee from $30 to $45 is their solution to ending the backlog. This is the fee under Section 4174 of the Public Health Law. Is this for only certified copies, of which genealogical copies are not? The current fee is $22, not $30, according to the website of the New York State Department of Health. Is this wrong?

Genealogical copies of births, marriages, and deaths are $22 from New York State Department of Health.
The website should have a disclaimer that you will not receive anything.

Raising fees would do nothing to end the existing backlog; however, it would lessen the rate of growth of the backlog by discouraging people from requesting more records. What would really decrease the growth of the backlog would be printing a disclaimer, such as “Our staff will not fill your order, but they will cash your check. Donate $45 to the State of New York now.” The backlog will remain because the orders were not fulfilled.

Also proposed is a research fee of $50 per hour. I'm not clear on when this would be invoked. At present, no research is performed, as no orders are processed. How long could this research endure? For example, minimum research on the part of the New York State Department of Health would have clarified that the request for the death certificate of Edmond Sheehy (died 1893 in Amenia) was incorrectly transcribed in their index as Edward Sheeby. Ten years later and I am still waiting for the death certificate. That is a lot of time.

In comparison, I can retrieve over one hundred certificates from microfilm in an all-day session at the New Jersey State Archives.

Also nervy is changing the statute to dispense with the requirement to maintain indexes to save themselves money after fighting against the request of Reclaim the Records to release those indexes.

In contrast, New York City is digitizing and publishing online for free its vital record collection.

New Jersey began state-wide collection of births, marriages, and deaths in 1848. For thirty years, the information was entered into ledger books and is available on microfilm at the New Jersey State Archives, online at a Family History Center for free, or online at home but behind a paywall at Ancestry. Certificates from 1878 forward are obtainable in person at the Archives in Trenton with cut-offs of 1924 for births and later for marriages and deaths. Mail orders are $10 per certificate with a return time of a few weeks.

Florida costs $10 per certificate with a return time of two weeks- the last time I ordered. More recent years are available than in New Jersey.

If New York cannot copy these records and cannot do it for $10, something is wrong. Very wrong.

Please share this information online to let New York know that its war on genealogy and history is not acceptable.

PS- While we are on the topic, what is the processing time of Connecticut? $20 for a death certificate. Waiting 22 months and counting.

A Tedious Courtship

 In the records of the First Presbyterian Church of Morristown, New Jersey is a curious entry for "a tedious courtship of 24 hours." The short courtship was unusual- maybe that is why it was mentioned? What does "tedious" mean in this context?

By Same [Reverend James Richards] January 17, 1806
David Munn, Orange
Miss Phebe Youngs, Malapardis,
"After a tedious courtship of 24 hours."

David Munn, the groom, was from Orange, Essex County. The bride, Phebe Youngs, was from Malapardis, which is now an area within Hanover, Morris County.

Map of Town of Hanover, Morris County, New Jersey. 1868.

The marriage was also recorded at the county level without mention of the courtship.

Marriages in the County of Morris, State of New Jersey.
These can be viewed from home for free via FamilySearch.org.
Film 1314453.

In spite of this unconventional beginning, the marriage endured for 33 years until the death of David Munn.

This union is mentioned in a book from 1907, Vicar Christopher Yonges. His Ancestors in England and His Descendants in America. A History and Genealogy. Three children are listed for David and Phebe. 

-Alson C Munn (died 1841)

-Ira Youngs Munn (1809-1882), married Mary Matilda Forsyth (1836-1920)

-Ruth Munn (1811-1889) married William Denman (1807-1879)

The family relocated from New Jersey to Missouri.

Excerpt from the Youngs Family Genealogy Book by Selah Youngs, Jr, 1907

David Munn served in the military for five years, from 1812 through 1817. He attained the rank of sergeant. He was in the light artillery of Captain John L Eastman's Company. During the Battle of York, War of 1812, he lost a finger. He died in 1839 in his 50s. A military marker sits atop his grave in Ohio.

Certain parts of David Munn's records relating to his military service are available from Fold3 (behind a paywall). Phebe became eligible for a widow's pension under a federal act passed in 1871. The soldier's service needed to have been at least sixty days and the marriage prior to the end of the War.

Act of 1871
Soldiers who served at least 60 days in the War of 1812 could apply for a pension,
as could their widows- if they married before the end of the War.

Phebe applied for her widow's pension under the Act of 1871. She had to prove that she was married prior to the end of the War in 1815. The clerk of Morris County, Richard Speer, copied by hand the lines from Book A of marriages, page 204- the same image above that we can now view on a computer.

Phebe's application to collect her widow's pension for David's service
in the War of 1812.
Number 4835.

The date of recording also had to be included- November 10, 1806- ten months after the event. The time lapse between events and recording of those events must be remembered when we evaluate the accuracy of records. In this case, we have to recordings- one from the county and one from the church, and they are consistent.

Phebe was awarded $8 per month.

Phebe died in 1875. She was buried with her daughter, Ruth (1811-1889), and son-in-law, William Denman (1807-1879), in Illinois.

Related Stepmother on Marriage Record

A marriage record is an excellent way of discovering the names of the parents of the bride and groom. The parties helped create the document and could ensure completeness and accuracy, as opposed to birth and death records in which the subject of the document is of no assistance in providing information.

That said, the information is not always accurate.

This was the case with the marriage record of William Hanford Ocoboc (1872-1941) and Anna Holander (1874-1948). They married December 15, 1894 in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey. William was raised in Rockaway, Morris County, New Jersey, but relocated to Essex County after the marriage. (Hanford is also spelled "Handford." Ocoboc has spelling variants, such as "Ockobock.")

William's parents were Hanford Ocoboc (1844-1918) and Ann Elizabeth Cook (1854-1885); however, on the marriage record, his mother was listed as Clara Lee (1861-1913).

Marriage record.
William Ocoboc and Anna Holander married December 15, 1894
in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey.

Names of William Ocoboc's parents as reported on his 1894 marriage record.
His mother was actually Ann Cook, not Clara Lee.

Clara was William's father's second wife. Clara and Ann were first cousins. Their grandparents were Stephen Cook (1798-1853) and Elizabeth Vanderhoof (1799-1878).

Family tree showing relationship of the two wives of Hanford Ocoboc (1844-1918).
William's marriage record listed Clara, not Ann, as his mother.

William was about thirteen years old when his mother died in 1885. The following year, his father remarried, resulting in another child born into the family. William was old enough to remember these events and know that his mother was Ann, not Clara. Perhaps he named Clara as his mother out of respect to her. Perhaps someone else supplied the information and William did not notice the discrepancy. We may never know. We must verify all information with other records whenever possible.

Hanford was related to both his wives. Through Hanford's paternal side, he was their second cousin, once removed. They shared ancestors Conrad Hopler (1730-1816) and Elizabeth Demuth (1735-1814). Handford's mother was Elizabeth Vanderhoff (1812-1889). Presumably she and the other Elizabeth Vanderhoof (1799-1878) were related.

Relationship of Hanford Ocoboc (1844-1918)
and his two wives

The resulting children of these unions were their own cousins.