Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow
45 Misc. 3d 597, 987 N.Y.S.2d 543 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the principle of comity, New York will generally not recognize a marriage that was invalid in the foreign jurisdiction where it was performed. An exception under Domestic Relations Law § 25 for license-less marriages will not apply unless there are extraordinary circumstances and the parties had a shared, justified expectation of being legally married.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant, New York residents, planned a destination wedding at a resort in Tulum, Mexico in February 2010.
- On a resort questionnaire, the parties crossed out 'civil' and 'religious' and wrote 'SYMBOLIC' to describe their planned ceremony.
- A wedding guide from the resort explicitly stated that symbolic/religious ceremonies were not legally valid in Mexico and detailed the legal requirements for marriage, which the parties did not follow.
- The ceremony was performed on a beach by Defendant's cousin, a New York dentist who was ordained as a Universal Life Church minister online.
- The parties never obtained a marriage license in Mexico, and the ceremony did not comply with any of the legal requirements of Quintana Roo, Mexico.
- Upon returning to New York, the parties started but never completed an application for a New York marriage license.
- In the years following the ceremony, both parties filed their U.S. federal income tax returns as unmarried individuals, with Defendant filing as 'single' and Plaintiff as 'head of household'.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action for divorce against Defendant in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, a state trial court.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the divorce action for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that 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 New York's Domestic Relations Law § 25, which can validate a properly solemnized marriage even without a license, apply to a marriage ceremony performed in a foreign country that is 'an absolute nullity' under that country's law, particularly when the parties did not have a justified expectation of being legally married?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthew F. Cooper, J.
No, Domestic Relations Law § 25 does not apply to validate a foreign marriage that was an absolute nullity where it was performed when the parties lacked a justified expectation of being legally married. The general rule of comity dictates that the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where it was contracted. Here, Mexican law unequivocally states that a marriage not celebrated before an officer of the Civil Registry is an 'absolute nullity.' Plaintiff's reliance on the exception created in Matter of Farraj is misplaced because the facts are starkly different. Unlike Farraj, there was no religious compulsion to marry out-of-state, no formal marriage certificate, and most importantly, no shared, justified expectation of being married. The evidence, including the selection of a 'symbolic' ceremony and the parties' post-ceremony tax filings as unmarried individuals, demonstrates they knew, or should have known, the ceremony was not legally binding. Therefore, the traditional principle of comity applies, and the marriage is invalid in New York because it was invalid in Mexico.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of comity as the primary rule for determining the validity of foreign marriages in New York. It significantly cabins the holding of Matter of Farraj, limiting its exception to unique factual circumstances where parties have a demonstrable and justified expectation of being legally wed. The ruling serves as a strong warning to couples planning 'destination weddings,' clarifying that they cannot deliberately bypass the legal requirements of a foreign jurisdiction and then seek validation under New York law. This reinforces the importance of formal legal requirements over symbolic gestures in the eyes of the court.
