## Facts

- B.S. (plaintiff) and F.B. (defendant) were in a same‑sex relationship for more than 14 years and lived together as a couple.   
- The parties participated in a Buddhist marriage ceremony in New Mexico, treating it as a marital commitment ceremony.   
- They later entered into a civil union in Vermont, a jurisdiction that then allowed same‑sex civil unions.   
- After the relationship deteriorated, B.S. filed in New York Supreme Court seeking dissolution of the Buddhist marriage on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.   
- B.S. also sought financial support and exclusive use and occupancy of the parties’ residence.   
- F.B. moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing that:  
  - New York did not recognize the Vermont civil union; and  
  - under Vermont law, the civil union was null and void because it followed the earlier Buddhist ceremony.   

## Issues

1. Does a New York trial court have subject‑matter jurisdiction under state domestic‑relations law to entertain an action to dissolve a same‑sex couple’s Buddhist “marriage” and grant related relief?  
2. Is the court barred from granting relief because New York (at that time) did not authorize same‑sex marriage and allegedly did not recognize the parties’ Vermont civil union?  
3. Do arguments under Vermont civil‑union law—claiming that the civil union is null and void due to the prior Buddhist ceremony—defeat New York’s jurisdiction or otherwise require dismissal of the action?

## Decision

- The court denied F.B.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.   
- The court held that it could exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate the parties’ relationship and the requested relief, notwithstanding New York’s then‑existing limits on same‑sex marriage.   
- The court rejected the contention that New York’s nonrecognition of same‑sex marriage or civil unions automatically deprived it of power to hear the case.   
- The court further concluded that arguments about the validity or nullity of the Vermont civil union under Vermont law did not eliminate New York’s jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties.   

## Legal Principles

- Subject‑matter jurisdiction in New York domestic‑relations matters turns on the nature of the dispute and the court’s statutory authority, not solely on whether the relationship is formally recognized as a “marriage” under New York law.   
- A court may address dissolution‑type relief and ancillary financial and possessory claims arising out of a same‑sex relationship even where the couple’s formal status (e.g., civil union, religious ceremony) is not fully aligned with New York’s statutory marriage framework.   
- The validity or characterization of a relationship under another state’s law (here, Vermont civil‑union law) may inform the dispute but does not, by itself, strip a New York court of jurisdiction to resolve claims between the parties.   

## Conclusion

The New York Supreme Court held that it possessed subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear B.S.’s action seeking dissolution of a same‑sex Buddhist marriage and related relief, rejecting F.B.’s attempt to dismiss the case based on New York’s then‑existing treatment of same‑sex unions and on alleged defects in the parties’ Vermont civil union.


B.S. v. F.B., 883 N.Y.S.2d 458 (Sup. Ct. 2009)