Amsellem v. Amsellem
730 N.Y.S.2d 212, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 282, 189 Misc.2d 27 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parties cohabit and hold themselves out as a married couple, a strong presumption of a valid marriage arises that can only be rebutted by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence. A marriage is not automatically void for failing to comply with foreign ceremonial requirements unless the foreign law explicitly states that noncompliance results in nullity.
Facts:
- On November 6, 1991, Jacques Amsellem and Sofia Amsellem participated in an Orthodox Jewish religious wedding ceremony in France.
- The ceremony was performed by a New York rabbi whom the couple flew to France for the event.
- The couple did not have a civil ceremony in France, which French law requires to be conducted prior to any religious ceremony.
- Following the ceremony, the parties resided in New York as husband and wife for nearly ten years.
- During their time in New York, they had five children together.
- The couple filed joint federal and state tax returns as a married couple.
- Jacques Amsellem provided a family medical insurance plan for Sofia and their children and held himself out to various agencies as being married.
Procedural Posture:
- Sofia Amsellem (plaintiff) initiated a matrimonial action against Jacques Amsellem (defendant) in the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, a state trial court.
- Jacques Amsellem filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3211, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties were never legally married.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York court lack subject matter jurisdiction over a matrimonial action because the parties' marriage, performed in France, consisted only of a religious ceremony and lacked the civil ceremony required by French law?
Opinions:
Majority - Joseph Covello, J.
No, the court does not lack subject matter jurisdiction. A failure to comply with foreign ceremonial marriage laws does not automatically void the marriage and deprive the court of jurisdiction, especially when a strong presumption of marriage exists. The court reasoned that when parties live and cohabit as husband and wife, a powerful legal presumption arises that they are validly married, which is especially strong when the legitimacy of children is at stake. The defendant, Jacques Amsellem, failed to provide 'the most cogent and satisfactory evidence' to overcome this presumption. The evidence of French law he presented only showed that an officiant could be penalized for performing a religious ceremony before a civil one; it did not state that the marriage itself would be null and void as a result. Citing precedents like Springer v. Springer, the court affirmed the principle that a marriage is valid despite noncompliance with statutory requirements unless the statute explicitly declares the marriage void for such noncompliance. Furthermore, the court noted that even if the marriage were void, it would still have jurisdiction over ancillary matters such as child custody and support.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces New York's strong public policy in favor of upholding the validity of marriages, especially long-term unions that have produced children. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for a party seeking to invalidate their own marriage on technical, procedural grounds years after the fact. The ruling indicates that New York courts will not allow parties to use procedural defects in foreign marriage laws as a shield to escape domestic relations obligations, unless that foreign law unequivocally declares the marriage void. This protects the expectations of the parties and the legitimacy of their children, prioritizing the substance of the relationship over ceremonial formalities.
