Godfrey v. Spano
Decision Date | 19 November 2009 |
Citation | 892 N.Y.S.2d 272,13 N.Y.3d 358 |
Parties | MARGARET GODFREY et al., Appellants, v. ANDREW J. SPANO, as Westchester County Executive, et al., Respondents, and NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER, Intervenor-Respondent. KENNETH J. LEWIS et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
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.
Plaintiff taxpayers challenge two directives by executive and county officials that recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee health insurance coverage and other benefits. We conclude that plaintiffs' actions were properly dismissed.
Four states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont— now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, without any residency requirement, as does Canada.1 As a consequence, many same-sex couples who are residents of New York State have traveled to those jurisdictions and married. In light of these developments, several state and county officials have recently issued general directives relating to the recognition of those out-of-state same-sex marriages.2 The present actions involve facial challenges to the legality of two of these directives, namely a Policy Memorandum issued by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service and an Executive Order issued by the County Executive of the County of Westchester.
In June 2006, defendant Andrew J. Spano, Westchester County Executive, citing opinion letters of the Attorney General and the Comptroller,3 issued an Executive Order, with the following direction:
. . .
. . .
In September 2006, plaintiffs Margaret Godfrey, Rosemarie Jarosz and Joseph Rossini, residents of and taxpayers in Westchester County, commenced an action against County Executive Andrew J. Spano, alleging two causes of action. In their first cause of action, brought pursuant to General Municipal Law § 51, plaintiffs claim that, by issuing Executive Order No. 3, Spano illegally legislated in the areas of marriage and domestic relations in a manner inconsistent with the New York State Constitution and state law. In their second cause of action, plaintiffs allege that Spano violated New York State Constitution, article IX, § 2 (c) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (1) (i). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that Executive Order No. 3 is "illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and otherwise null and void" and a permanent injunction preventing the implementation or effectuation of the Executive Order.
Michael Sabatino and Robert Voorheis, a same-sex couple who married in Canada, were permitted to intervene.4 Spano and the intervenors moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint under CPLR 3211 (a) (7).
Supreme Court granted the motions to dismiss and declared that Executive Order No. 3 is "a valid exercise of the County Executive's power, not an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Windsor
...States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? See Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 920 N.E.2d 328 (2009). DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. T......
-
Windsor v. United States
...the Attorney General, and the Comptroller—had endorsed the recognition of Windsor's marriage. See Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358, 368 n. 3, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 920 N.E.2d 328 (N.Y.2009) (describing 2004 informal opinion letters of the Attorney General and the State Comptroller which respecti......
-
Windsor v. United States
...same-sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. That question was presented to the New York Court of Appeals in Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358 (2009). However, the court was able to resolve that case on other grounds, finding "it unnecessary to reach defendants' argument that New Y......
-
Windsor v. United States
...entered into in other jurisdictions. That question was presented to the New York Court of Appeals in Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 920 N.E.2d 328 (2009). However, the court was able to resolve that case on other grounds, finding “it unnecessary to reach defendants' argu......
-
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman: a new era.
...N.E.2d 1195, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357; Borrell, 12 N.Y.3d 365, 909 N.E.2d 559, 881 N.Y.S.2d 637 (2009). (37) See app.A. (38) Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358 (39) Weaver, 12 N.Y.3d 433, 909 N.E.2d 1195, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357. (40) Koehler v. Bank of Berm. Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533, 911 N.E.2d 825, 883 N.Y.S.2d......
-
The Albany nine: recognizing Albany Law School's Alumni Justices of the Third Department.
...Civil Servs., 60 A.D.3d 216, 219-220, 872 N.Y.S.2d 578, 582 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009), aff'd on other grounds sub nora. Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358, 377, 920 N.E.2d 328, 337, 892 N.Y.S.2d 272, 281 (2009) (in the Third Department, before Justices Rose, Kane, Peters, Lahtinen, and Malone ......
-
The Court of Appeals's decision in Godfrey v. Spano: a troubling exercise of indecision.
...Nov. 21, 2006, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/790724.html. (7) 57 A.D.3d 941, 871 N.Y.S.2d 296 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008), aff'd, 13 N.Y.3d 358 (8) 60 A.D.3d 216, 872 N.Y.S.2d 578 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 2009), aff'd sub nom., Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358 (2009). (9) Godfrey, 13 N.Y.3d a......
-
Legal Aspects of Same-sex Relationships in Connecticut
...law, New York's statutory law clearly [limited] marriage to opposite-sex couples. 7 N.Y.3d at 357. Prior to Hernandez, Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N.Y.3d 358, 920 N.E.2d (2009), and v. N.Y. State Dept. of Civil Serv., 13 N.Y. 780, 915, N.E.2d 1176 (2009), held by only a four-judge majority (out of......