Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages: New Precedent from GODFREY v. SPANO and Lewis v. New York State Dept. of Civil Service

Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages: New Precedent from GODFREY v. SPANO and Lewis v. New York State Dept. of Civil Service

Introduction

In the landmark cases of Margaret Godfrey et al. v. Andrew J. Spano and Kenneth J. Lewis et al. v. New York State Department of Civil Service, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York addressed the legality of executive and administrative directives recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs, comprising taxpayers and same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where such unions are legal, challenged the recognition of these marriages for purposes of public employee benefits and county-level health insurance coverage. The core issues revolved around the principles of comity, the separation of powers, and whether such recognitions constituted illegal expenditure of public funds or exceeded executive authority.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision with concurring opinions, affirmed the Appellate Division's rulings in both cases. Specifically, the court held that:

  • The Westchester County Executive's Order No. 3 of 2006, which mandated the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages for the administration of county employee benefits, was a valid exercise of executive power and did not violate the State Constitution or the Municipal Home Rule Law.
  • The New York State Department of Civil Service's Policy Memorandum recognizing same-sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where they are legal was lawful and within the department's authority.
  • The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any illegal expenditure of public funds or overreach of executive authority, leading to the dismissal of their complaints.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced prior cases to underpin its decision:

  • Hernandez v. Robles: Affirmed that New York's Domestic Relations Law restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples but did not address out-of-state recognition.
  • Martinez v. County of Monroe: Held that out-of-state same-sex marriages are entitled to recognition in New York under the common-law marriage recognition rule.
  • Van Voorhis v. Brintnall and MATTER OF MAY: Established principles of comity in recognizing out-of-state marriages unless explicitly prohibited by New York law.
  • MARSHALL v. SHERMAN, HILTON v. GUYOT, and other international cases: Supported the concept of comity, reinforcing mutual respect among jurisdictions for legal marriages.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed the doctrine of comity, which dictates that jurisdictions respect the legislative and judicial acts of other sovereign entities. Despite New York not authorizing same-sex marriages within its borders, it recognized unions performed elsewhere unless there was a clear legislative mandate to the contrary. The court emphasized that the Department of Civil Service and the Westchester County Executive acted within their statutory authority by extending benefits to same-sex couples married out-of-state, aligning with New York’s longstanding practices of recognizing valid out-of-state marriages.

Additionally, the Court addressed the separation of powers, determining that the executive and administrative actions did not usurp legislative authority but rather operated within defined regulatory frameworks. The lack of specific legislative prohibition against recognizing same-sex marriages precluded plaintiffs from successfully arguing that such recognition was unconstitutional or an illegal expenditure of funds.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the legal framework supporting the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages in New York, particularly for the administration of public employee benefits and county-level health insurance. It underscores the limitations of taxpayer-suit mechanisms like General Municipal Law § 51 and State Finance Law § 123-b in challenging such administrative decisions. Future cases involving similar issues will likely reference this precedent, affirming that executive and administrative bodies possess the authority to extend benefits to out-of-state same-sex couples without overstepping into legislative domains.

Moreover, the affirmation of comity principles in this context may influence other jurisdictions grappling with recognition of same-sex marriages, fostering consistency across state lines and enhancing the legal security of same-sex unions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Comity Principles: A legal doctrine that recognizes the mutual respect and recognition of legal acts, such as marriages, performed in other jurisdictions, provided they do not contravene the fundamental policies of the recognizing state.

Separation of Powers: The division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to prevent any one branch from exercising the core functions of another, thereby preventing the concentration of power.

General Municipal Law § 51 & State Finance Law § 123-b: Legal provisions allowing taxpayers to sue for fraudulent or illegal expenditure of public funds. However, these laws require specific evidence of misuse, which the plaintiffs failed to provide.

Policy Memorandum: An official document issued by a department heads that outlines policies or guidelines for implementation of laws and regulations within their purview.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals' decision in GODFREY v. SPANO and Lewis v. New York State Dept. of Civil Service represents a significant affirmation of New York's commitment to recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages within the framework of public employee benefits and county-level health insurance. By upholding the principles of comity and delineating the boundaries of executive authority, the Court has reinforced the legal protections for same-sex couples married outside New York. This judgment not only resolves the immediate disputes but also sets a clear precedent that will guide future administrative and judicial actions regarding the recognition of same-sex marriages in the state.

Case Details

Year: 2009
Court: Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Judge(s)

Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick

Attorney(S)

Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, Arizona ( Brian W. Raum, Benjamin W. Bull, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, and James A. Campbell, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Ruta Soulios, LLP, New York City ( Joseph A. Ruta of counsel), for appellants in the first above-entitled action. I. Comity principles prohibit a county executive from ordering that all county departments, boards, agencies and commissions recognize same-sex relationships considered "marriages" by other sovereign jurisdictions. ( Frances B. v Mark B., 78 Misc 2d 112; Anonymous v Anonymous, 67 Misc 2d 982; Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Marshall v Sherman, 148 NY 9; Hilton v Guyot, 159 US 113; J. Zeevi Sons v Grindlays Bank [Uganda], 37 NY2d 220; Petersen v Chemical Bank, 32 NY 21; Baker v General Motors Corp., 522 US 222; Ehrlich-Bober Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574; Matter of Langan v State Farm Fire Cas., 48 AD3d 76.) II. Homerule principles prohibit county executives from dictating which out-of-state unions will be recognized as marriages. ( Seaman v Fedourich, 16 NY2d 94; Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v Suffolk County, 71 NY2d 91; Slattery v City of New York, 179 Misc 2d 740, 266 AD2d 24; Fearon v Treanor, 272 NY 268; Albany Area Bldrs. Assn. v Town of Guilderland, 74 NY2d 372; Matter of Ames v Smoot, 98 AD2d 216; New York State Club Assn. v City of New York, 69 NY2d 211; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v Town of Red Hook, 60 NY2d 99; Robin v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 30 NY2d 347; Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185.) Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, Arizona ( Brian W. Raum, Benjamin W. Bull, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, and James A. Campbell, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Cutler, Trainor Cutler LLP, Malta ( James P. Trainor of counsel), for appellants in the second above-entitled action. I. Comity principles prohibit executive officials from recognizing same-sex relationships considered "marriages" by other sovereign jurisdictions. ( Frances B. v Mark B., 78 Misc 2d 112; Anonymous v Anonymous, 67 Misc 2d 982; Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Marshall v Sherman, 148 NY 9; Hilton v Guyot, 159 US 113; J. Zeevi Sons v Grindlays Bank [Uganda], 37 NY2d 220; Petersen v Chemical Bank, 32 NY 21; Baker v General Motors Corp., 522 US 222; Ehrlich-Bober Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574; Matter of Langan v State Farm Fire Cas., 48 AD3d 76.) II. The Department of Civil Service acted inconsistently with the Legislature, exceeded its statutory authority, and thus violated the separation of powers doctrine. ( Under 21, Catholic Home Bur. for Dependent Children v City of New York, 65 NY2d 344; Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75; Rapp v Carey, 44 NY2d 157; Subcontractors Trade Assn. v Koch, 62 NY2d 422; Matter of Broidrick v Lindsay, 39 NY2d 641; Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185; Matter of Cooper, 187 AD2d 128; Matter of Valentine v American Airlines, 17 AD3d 38; Raum v Restaurant Assoc., 252 AD2d 369; Langan v St. Vincent's Hosp. of N.Y., 25 AD3d 90.) Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney, White Plains ( Mary Lynn Nicolas-Brewster and Stacey Dolgin-Kmetz of counsel), for Andrew J. Spano, respondent in the first above-entitled action. I. The Appellate Division correctly held that plaintiff's failed to state a claim under section 51 of the General Municipal Law against County Executive Spano. ( Mesivta of Forest Hills Inst. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 1014; Kaskel v Impellitteri, 306 NY 73, 347 US 934; Matter of Korn v Gulotta, 72 NY2d 363; Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester, 3 AD3d 533, 2 NY3d 706; Slattery v City of New York, 179 Misc 2d 740, 266 AD2d 24, 94 NY2d 897; Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent, Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326; Lewis v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 60 AD3d 216, 12 NY3d 705; Wein v City of New York, 80 Misc 2d 894, 47 AD2d 367; Betters v Knabel, 288 AD2d 872, 98 NY2d 659; Montecalvo v City of Utica, 170 Misc 2d 107, 233 AD2d 960, 89 NY2d 938.) II. Plaintiffs cannot maintain an action under the Municipal Home Rule Law and the New York State Constitution. ( Kadish v Roosevelt Raceway Assoc., 183 AD2d 874; Matter of Meehan v County of Westchester, 3 AD3d 533; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Bradford Cent. School Dist. v Ambach, 56 NY2d 158; Diederich v Rockland County Police Chiefs' Assn., 33 AD3d 653, 8 NY3d 875; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; Citizens Util. Bd. v State of New York, 267 AD2d 838, 95 NY2d 757; Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185; Matter of Clark v Town Bd. of Town of Clarkstown, 28 AD3d 553; Matter of Madison Sq. Garden, L.P. v New York Metro. Transp. Auth., 19 AD3d 284.) Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City ( Sasha Samberg-Champion, Barbara D. Underwood and Benjamin N. Gutman of counsel), for intervenor-respondent in the first above-entitled action and New York State Department of Civil Service and another, respondents in the second above-entitled action. I. A same-sex marriage validly performed in another jurisdiction is entitled to recognition in New York. ( Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Shea v Shea, 294 NY 909; Carpenter v Carpenter, 208 AD2d 882; Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777; Matter of Valente, 18 Misc 2d 701; People v Ezeonu, 155 Misc 2d 344; Crair v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 524; Matter of Gotlib v Ratsutsky, 83 NY2d 696.) II. Neither the Department of Civil Service nor the Westchester County Executive has made any unlawful expenditure, regardless of whether New York recognizes same-sex marriages. ( Matter of Brooklyn Assembly Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y., 11 NY3d 327; Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70; Matter of O'Brien v Spitzer, 7 NY3d 239; Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency v State of New York, 106 AD2d 23; Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201; Slattery v City of New York, 266 AD2d 24; Beresford Apts. v City of New York, 238 AD2d 218; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801; Matter of Altamore v Barrios-Paoli, 90 NY2d 378; McMillen v Browne, 14 NY2d 326.) Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., New York City ( Susan L. Sommer of counsel), and Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel LLP (Jeffrey S. Trachtman, Joshua Glick, Michael B. Eisenkraft and Jason M. Moff of counsel), for Michael Sabatino and others, respondents in the first and second above-entitled actions. I. Out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples are entitled to legal recognition in New York under longstanding comity principles. ( Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Matter of Watts, 31 NY2d 491; People v Haynes, 26 NY2d 665; Matter of Farber v U. S. Trucking Corp., 26 NY2d 44; Shea v Shea, 294 NY 909; Matter of Catapano, 17 AD3d 672; Katebi v Hooshiari, 288 AD2d 188.) II. Appellants' arguments distort New York law and public policy. ( Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189; Beth R. v Donna M., 19 Misc 3d 724; Langan v St. Vincent's Hosp. of N.Y., 25 AD3d 90; Matter of Langan v State Farm Fire Cas., 48 AD3d 76; Kraut v Morgan Brother Manhattan Stor. Co., 38 NY2d 445; Glaser v Glaser, 276 NY 296; Mertz v Mertz, 271 NY 466; Straus Co. v Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 254 NY 407; Ehrlich-Bober Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574.) III. The decisions below should be affirmed for the additional reasons addressed in the government respondents' briefs. ( Mesivta of Forest Hills Inst. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 1014; Montecalvo v City of Utica, 170 Misc 2d 107; Gaynor v Rockefeller, 21 AD2d 92, 15 NY2d 120.) Stephen J. Acquario, General Counsel, New York State Association of Counties, Albany ( Robert W. Gibbon of counsel), for New York State Association of Counties, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action. I. The Westchester County Executive Order was legally and constitutionally executed. ( Matter of Combs v Nickerson, 38 Misc 2d 242; New York Trap Rock Corp. v Town of Clarkstown, 299 NY 77; Slattery v City of New York, 179 Misc 2d 740.) II. There is no valid claim set forth under General Municipal Law § 51. ( Kaskel v Impellitteri, 306 NY 73; Western N.Y. Water Co. v City of Buffalo, 242 NY 202; Altschul v Ludwig, 216 NY 459; Hurley v Tolfree, 308 NY 358; Mesivta of Forest Hills Inst. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 1014; Talcott v City of Buffalo, 125 NY 280; Wein v City of New York, 80 Misc 2d 894; Gusdore Corp. v Michaels, 13 Misc 2d 762, 8 AD2d 663; Berkey v Downing, 68 Misc 2d 595, 39 AD2d 1008.) Frederick C. Veit, Briarcliff Manor, for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled action. I. Limiting marriage to New York's traditional definition of one man and one woman is not tautological, as an analogy to chemistry demonstrates. ( Smelt v County of Orange, 447 Fad 673; Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Maynard v Hill, 125 US 190.) II. The marriage recognition rule should be adapted because a single simple adjustment will allow the current rule to remain in place when one man-one woman marriage is at issue and will allow the Legislature to act in the first instance when a redefinition of marriage is at issue. ( Community Bd. 7 of Borough of Manhattan v Schaffer, 84 NY2d 148; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Cunningham v Cunningham, 206 NY 341; Bronson v Swensen, 500 F3d 1099.) Richard E. Barnes, Albany, Thomas More Society, Northbrook, Illinois ( Paul Benjamin Linton of counsel), and Thomas More Society, Chicago, Illinois ( Thomas Brejcha of counsel), for New York State Catholic Conference, amicus curiae in the second above-entitled action. Nothing in this Court's jurisprudence requires the State of New York or any of its agencies or political subdivisions to recognize the validity of a lawful out-of-state marriage between two persons who could not have married each other in New York. ( Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602; Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521; Funderburke v New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv., 13 Misc 3d 284, 49 AD3d 809; Storrs v Holcomb, 168 Misc 2d 898; Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189; Cunningham v Cunningham, 206 NY 341; Reid v Reid, 72 Misc 214, 146 App Div 916.) Law Offices of Robert W. Dapelo, P.C., Patchogue ( Robert W. Dapelo of counsel), and Marriage Law Foundation, Lehi, Utah ( William C. Duncan of counsel), for Family Watch International, amicus curiae in the second above-entitled action. I. For purposes of marriage recognition, as in all other aspects of New York law, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ( Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338.) II. The Department of Civil Service does not have authority to redefine marriage for any purpose. ( Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801; Matter of New York State Health Facilities Assn. v Axelrod, 77 NY2d 340; Matter of Campagna v Shaffer, 73 NY2d 237.) III. The Department of Civil Service memorandum redefining marriage for purposes of interstate recognition threatens important public policies. ( Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Rapp v Carey, 44 NY2d 157; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801; Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d 781.) Proskauer Rose LLP, New York City ( Peter J.W. Sherwin and Kenneth E. Aldous of counsel), and Michael E. Getnick, Albany, for New York State Bar Association, amicus curiae in the second above-entitled action. I. New York's common law of comity in the marriage context is long-standing and well established, dictates the result reached by the lower courts here, and should not be altered merely to achieve a different result. ( Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Carpenter v Carpenter, 208 AD2d 882; Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777; Matter of Peart, 277 App Div 61; Shea v Shea, 268 App Div 677, 294 NY 909; Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Earle v Earle, 141 App Div 611; People v Ezeonu, 155 Misc 2d 344.) II. New York law recognizes marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions, and this Court's decision in Hernandez v Robles ( 7 NY3d 338) does not dictate a contrary result. James R. Sandner, Latham, Elizabeth R. Schuster, Wendy M. Star and Shawn T. Kelly for New York State United Teachers, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions. I. New York State law requires recognition of same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. ( Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Shea v Shea, 294 NY 909; Carpenter v Carpenter, 208 AD2d 882; Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777; Matter of Valente, 18 Misc 2d 701; Matter of Ziegler v Cassidy's Sons, 220 NY 98; People v Ezeonu, 155 Misc 2d 344; Haviland v Halstead, 34 NY 643.) II. The Department of Civil Service properly recognized validly performed out-of-state same-sex marriages for the New York State Health Insurance Program enrollment. ( Matter of Brooklyn Assembly Halls of Jehovahs Witnesses, Inc. v Department of deuce. Protection of City of N.Y., 11 NY3d 327; Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70; Syracuse Urban Renewal Agency v State of New York, 106 AD2d 23; Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201; Matter of O'Brien v Spitzer, 7 NY3d 239.) III. Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano properly exercised his authority when he issued Executive Order No. 3 of 2006. ( Slattery v City of New York, 179 Misc 2d 740, 266 AD2d 24, 94 NY2d 897; Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Mineola v International Bhd. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, Local 808, 11 Misc 3d 844; Matter of Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn. v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326; Matter of Korn v Gulotta, 72 NY2d 363; Wein v City of New York, 80 Misc 2d 894, 47 AD2d 367; Betters v Knabel, 288 AD2d 872, 98 NY2d 659; Montecalvo v City of Utica, 170 Misc 2d 107, 233 AD2d 960, 89 NY2d 938; Matter of Bernstein v Feiner, 13 AD3d 519; Gaynor v Rockefeller, 15 NY2d 120; Mesivta of Forest Hills Inst. v City of New York, 58 NY2d 1014.) Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City ( Susan Paulson and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions. I. The recognition of validly performed out-of-state same-sex marriages is neither barred by statute nor in conflict with New York policy. ( Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189, 10 NY3d 856; Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777; Matter of Peart, 277 App Div 61; Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651; Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201.) II. The Westchester County Executive and New York State Department of Civil Service acted within the scope of their authority in directing the recognition of same-sex marriages. ( Slattery v City of New York, 179 Misc 2d 740, 266 AD2d 24, 94 NY2d 897, 95 NY2d 823.) McDermott Will Emery LLP; New York City ( Lisa A. Linsky, Kathryn C. Goyer and Rachel Hundley of counsel), and Carmelyn Malalis for New York City Bar Association, amicus curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions. I. The New York common law requires that a validly performed out-of-state marriage must be recognized as valid in New York. ( Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189; Beth R. v Donna M., 19 Misc 3d 724; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Matter of Watts, 31 NY2d 491; Shea v Shea, 294 NY 909; Matter of Valente, 18 Misc 2d 701; Hilliard v Hilliard, 24 Misc 2d 861; Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v Rite Aid Corp., 7 NY3d 78.) II. Recognition of out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. ( Golden v Paterson, 23 Misc 3d 641; Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801; Matter of General Elec. Capital Corp. v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals, Tax Appeals Trib., 2 NY3d 249; Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 196; Matter of Citizens For An Orderly Energy Policy v Cuomo, 78 NY2d 398; Matter of Cooper, 187 AD2d 128; Matter of Valentine v American Airlines, 17 AD3d 38; Raum v Restaurant Assoc., 252 AD2d 369; Langan v St. Vincent's Hosp. of N.Y., 25 AD3d 90.) Tobias Barrington Wolff Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Tobias Barrington Wolff and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions. This case is an inappropriate vehicle for reconsidering New York's long embrace of the place-of-celebration rule. ( Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Matter of Farber v U.S. Trucking Corp., 26 NY2d 44; People v Onofre, 51 NY2d 476; Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558; Moore v East Cleveland, 431 US 494; Muth v Frank, 412 F3d 808; Matter of Nakoneczna v Eisenberg, 60 AD2d 403; Matter of Brown v Brown, 51 Misc 2d 839.) Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison LLP New York City ( Roberta A. Kaplan of counsel), Arthur Eisenberg, Matthew Faiella and Rose Saxe for New York Civil Liberties Union and others, amici curiae in the first and second above-entitled actions. I. The marriage recognition rule applies to all marriages, including marriages of same-sex couples. ( Romer v Evans, 517 US 620; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Thorp v Thorp, 90 NY 602; Moore v Hegeman, 92 NY 521; Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Matter of Farber v U S. Trucking Corp., 26 NY2d 44; Matter of Mott v Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 NY2d 289; Fernandes v Fernandes, 275 App Div 777; Matter of Valente, 18 Misc 2d 701; Hilliard v Hilliard, 24 Misc 2d 861.) II. New York common law compels recognition of a same-sex couple's valid out-of-state marriage. ( Matter of May, 305 NY 486; Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 NY 18; Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189; Welsbach Elec. Corp. v MasTec N. Am., Inc., 7 NY3d 624; Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338; Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201; Levin v Yeshiva Univ., 96 NY2d 484; Matter of Jacob, 86 NY2d 651; Matter of Donna S., 23 Misc 3d 338; Matter of Daniels, 2 Misc 3d 413.)

Comments