In Re the Estate of May
305 N.Y. 486 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A marriage validly celebrated in another state will be recognized as valid in New York, unless it is expressly prohibited by a New York statute intended to have extraterritorial effect or is so offensive to public morality as to be considered a violation of natural law.
Facts:
- Sam May and his niece by the half-blood, Fannie May, were residents of New York and adherents of the Jewish faith.
- In January 1913, they traveled to Providence, Rhode Island, for the purpose of getting married.
- At that time, Rhode Island law prohibited marriages between an uncle and niece but provided a statutory exception for marriages solemnized among Jewish people, if permitted by their religion.
- Sam and Fannie May were married by a Jewish rabbi in Rhode Island on January 21, 1913.
- The couple returned to New York two weeks after their marriage.
- They lived together as husband and wife in New York for 32 years and had six children.
- Fannie May died in 1945 while still a resident of New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Alice May Greenberg, the decedent's daughter, petitioned the Surrogate's Court for letters of administration for her mother Fannie May's estate.
- Sam May, the decedent's husband, filed an objection, asserting his paramount right as the surviving spouse to administer the estate.
- The Surrogate's Court ruled that the marriage was void in New York and granted the letters of administration to the daughter, Alice.
- Sam May appealed this decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the Surrogate's Court, holding that the marriage was valid in New York and directed that letters of administration be issued to Sam May.
- The petitioner, Alice May Greenberg, appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York.
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 invalidate a marriage between an uncle and a niece, who were New York domiciliaries, when the marriage was lawfully celebrated in Rhode Island and valid under that state's law?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, Ch. J.
No. New York will recognize a marriage validly celebrated in another state unless it falls into one of two narrow exceptions: violation of a positive law with extraterritorial effect or violation of natural law. The general rule, known as lex loci celebrationis, dictates that the legality of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where it was celebrated. New York's statute prohibiting uncle-niece marriages (Domestic Relations Law, § 5, subd. 3) does not contain express language giving it extraterritorial force to invalidate marriages of its domiciliaries performed legally elsewhere. Furthermore, while such a marriage is prohibited in New York, it is not considered so offensive to the public sense of morality or universally abhorred as to be within the prohibition of natural law, especially given that it was permitted by the parties' religion and the laws of Rhode Island. Therefore, the marriage is valid in New York.
Dissenting - Desmond, J.
Yes. The marriage should be considered void in New York because every state has the right to determine the marital status of its own citizens, and New York has a strong, declared public policy against uncle-niece marriages. New York's statute explicitly declares such marriages to be 'incestuous and void,' which constitutes an express prohibition that should apply to its domiciliaries who leave the state solely to evade this law. The general rule of recognizing out-of-state marriages has a clear exception for marriages that are contrary to the strong public policy of the home state. By recognizing this marriage, the court is denying the efficacy of New York's sovereign power to regulate the marital status of its own residents.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes New York's strong adherence to the comity principle of lex loci celebrationis, recognizing marriages valid where performed. It significantly narrows the 'public policy' exception, clarifying that for a New York statute to invalidate an out-of-state marriage, it must explicitly state its extraterritorial intent. The ruling distinguishes between prohibitions that are merely statutory (like this one) and those that offend a universal sense of morality ('natural law'), setting a high bar for refusing to recognize a foreign marriage. This precedent reinforces legal certainty for couples who marry in one state and move to another, limiting a state's ability to invalidate a marriage based on its own domestic policies unless the marriage is considered fundamentally abhorrent or the legislature has spoken unequivocally.
Unlock the full brief for In Re the Estate of May