Baron v. Suissa
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Citation | 906 N.Y.S.2d 50,74 A.D.3d 1108 |
| Parties | Marcy R. BARON, also known as Marcy R. Suissa, appellant, v. Ronald SUISSA, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin J. Rosen, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.
Steven G. Legum, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action, inter alia, to establish the validity of an alleged common-law marriage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated March 11, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first, second, third, fourth, fourteenth, twenty-fifth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, and twenty-ninth causesof action with prejudice, and dismissing the remaining causes of action without prejudice to renew in a proper forum.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Although New York does not recognize common-law marriages contracted within its borders ( see Domestic Relations Law § 11; Matter of Benjamin, 34 N.Y.2d 27, 30, 355 N.Y.S.2d 356, 311 N.E.2d 495), "a common-law marriage contracted in a sister State will be recognized as valid here if it is valid where contracted" ( Matter of Mott v. Duncan Petroleum Trans., 51 N.Y.2d 289, 292, 434 N.Y.S.2d 155, 414 N.E.2d 657; see Matter of Catapano, 17 A.D.3d 672, 794 N.Y.S.2d 401; Matter of Steiner, 12 A.D.3d 682, 786 N.Y.S.2d 83; Matter of Landolfi, 283 A.D.2d 497, 498, 724 N.Y.S.2d 470).
The plaintiff alleged that the parties entered into a valid common-law marriage pursuant to the laws of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, and she commenced this action, inter alia, both to establish the validity of that alleged marriage and to dissolve it by divorce. She moved, among other things, for certain pendente lite relief relating to the alleged marriage, and the defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that no marriage ever existed between the parties.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent of dismissing, with prejudice, those causes of action which were premised on the existence of a valid common-law marriage. The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on those causes of action ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572) based on the evidence of the plaintiff's marriage to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Baron v. Suissa
-
Kosturek v. Kosturek
...constituted a judicial admission ( see Matter of Daniel C., 63 N.Y.2d 927, 929, 483 N.Y.S.2d 679, 473 N.E.2d 31;Baron v. Suissa, 74 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 906 N.Y.S.2d 50;Echavarria v. Cromwell Assoc., 232 A.D.2d 347, 648 N.Y.S.2d 600;Marmorale v. Marmorale, 103 A.D.2d 736, 736–737, 477 N.Y.S.2......
-
McKeown v. Frederick
... ... as husband and wife, acknowledgment, declarations, conduct Page 42 and the like are all probative of the existence of a common law marriage); Baron v. Suissa, 74 A.D.3d 1108 (2d Dep't 2010)(discussing the proof required for establishing a common law marriage). While such an inquiry may be ... ...
-
Chatterton v. Stapleton
...required by the relevant statutes. In addition, New York State does not recognize common law marriage within its borders (Baron v Suissa. 74 A.D.3d 1108 [2nd Dept 2010]). As a result, although the plaintiff, as the Executrix of the decedent's estate, may be a proper party to bring a wrongfu......