In re the Estate of Farraj
72 A.D.3d 1082, 900 N.Y.S.2d 340 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage, rather than strictly by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.
Facts:
- In May 2003, Rabaa M. Hanash, a New Jersey resident, and Daoud Farraj, a New York resident, participated in a formal Islamic marriage ceremony.
- The ceremony was held at the home of Hanash's brother in Clifton, New Jersey, in accordance with Islamic tradition.
- An Imam from New York traveled to New Jersey to solemnize the marriage.
- The couple did not obtain a marriage license in either New Jersey or New York.
- Immediately following the ceremony, the couple returned to Brooklyn, New York, for a wedding celebration.
- The couple lived together in New York as a married couple from the time of the ceremony in May 2003 until Farraj's death in July 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- After Daoud Farraj died intestate, letters of administration were issued to his son, Saed Farraj.
- Rabaa M. Hanash, claiming to be the decedent's surviving spouse, filed a petition in the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, to compel an accounting of the estate.
- Saed Farraj moved in the Surrogate's Court to dismiss the petition, arguing Hanash lacked standing because her marriage to the decedent was invalid.
- The Surrogate’s Court denied the motion to dismiss.
- Saed Farraj, as appellant, appealed the Surrogate's Court's order to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department.
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 New York law, which recognizes a solemnized marriage lacking a license, or New Jersey law, which voids such a marriage, apply to determine the validity of a marriage ceremony performed in New Jersey between a New York domiciliary and a New Jersey resident who thereafter established their sole marital domicile in New York?
Opinions:
Majority - Prudenti, P.J., Fisher, Roman and Sgroi, JJ.
Yes, New York law applies. The validity of a marriage should be determined by the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage. The court departs from the traditional rule that the law of the place of celebration governs, instead adopting the more flexible approach of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 283. The court reasoned that New York had the most significant relationship because the parties had a justified expectation that they were married, their intended and actual matrimonial domicile was New York, and they held themselves out as a married couple in New York. In contrast, New Jersey's interest was minimal, as the ceremony's location there was incidental to a religious custom and the couple left immediately after. Under New York law, the marriage is valid because it was properly solemnized, despite the lack of a license.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New York's adoption of the modern 'most significant relationship' test for determining the validity of a marriage in conflict of law scenarios. It moves away from the rigid, traditional 'lex loci celebrationis' rule, which could invalidate a marriage on a technicality in a state with only a fleeting connection to the couple. This approach prioritizes the couple's intentions, their marital domicile, and the public policy of the state with the strongest interest in their status. The ruling provides greater flexibility and protects the justified expectations of parties who enter into formal, albeit technically deficient, marriage ceremonies.
