## Facts

- Two women lived together in Yonkers, New York, for over fourteen years.
- They participated in a Buddhist “marriage” ceremony in 1994 and entered into a Vermont civil union in 2003.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant had substantial income (including from family trusts) while plaintiff was disabled, worked only intermittently, and received monthly disability benefits.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant historically paid most household expenses while plaintiff contributed through household maintenance, supporting defendant’s art, and caring for their dogs.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant became alcoholic and verbally and physically abusive, began another intimate relationship, and sought to end the relationship and remove plaintiff from the home.
- Defendant served plaintiff with an eviction notice characterizing plaintiff as a tenant at will.
- Plaintiff filed a Family Court petition alleging a family offense; defendant consented to an order of protection with “refrain from” provisions, including a restriction on alcohol or drug use in the home.
- Plaintiff then filed an action in Supreme Court seeking a divorce under Domestic Relations Law (DRL) § 170(1) and requested maintenance and other matrimonial-type interim relief.
- Defendant moved pre-answer to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, contending New York did not recognize the civil union as a marriage and disputing the union’s validity under Vermont law.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court has statutory subject-matter jurisdiction under the DRL to grant a divorce dissolving a Buddhist ceremony or a Vermont civil union as a “marriage.”
2. Whether a Vermont civil union or a religious ceremony constitutes a legally cognizable marriage under New York law sufficient to support ancillary matrimonial relief.
3. Whether, absent a valid marriage under the DRL, the court may award pendente lite relief framed as matrimonial remedies within a divorce action.

## Decision

- The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the divorce complaint.
- The court held it lacked authority under the DRL to dissolve either the Buddhist “marriage” ceremony or the Vermont civil union as a marriage.
- The court denied plaintiff’s pendente lite requests for matrimonial-type relief because such remedies are statutorily conditioned on the existence of a valid marriage under New York law.
- The dismissal was without prejudice to whatever non-matrimonial contractual or equitable claims the parties might assert in an appropriate action.

## Legal Principles

- New York courts’ authority to dissolve a relationship and award matrimonial remedies is purely statutory; DRL divorce jurisdiction presupposes a marriage recognized under New York law.
- A religious or private ceremony, without compliance with statutory marriage formalities, does not create a civil marriage for DRL purposes.
- A Vermont civil union is a separate legal status from marriage; absent legislative authorization, New York courts cannot treat a civil union as a marriage for DRL divorce and ancillary relief.
- Comity principles that recognize out-of-state marriages do not compel treating a civil union as a marriage where the originating jurisdiction did not create a marriage status.
- Pendente lite maintenance, exclusive occupancy, carrying charges, and related relief sought as matrimonial remedies are unavailable in a DRL divorce action when no valid marriage is alleged.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a DRL divorce action between parties to a Vermont civil union, holding that neither a religious ceremony nor a civil union constitutes a marriage dissolvable under New York’s matrimonial statutes, and it therefore could not award DRL-based interim support or property-related relief in that action.


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