L.F. v. M.A.
| Docket Number | Index No. XXXXX |
| Decision Date | 06 February 2023 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y.S.3d 698 |
| Parties | L.F., Plaintiff, v. M.A., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
For Plaintiff: Bonnie E. Rabin, Esq., Deirdre L. Fletcher, Esq., Rabin Schumann and Partners LLP
For Defendant Harriet N. Cohen, Esq., Ankit Kapoor, Esq., Cohen Stine Kapoor LLP
For non-party movants: David J. Labib, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. LABIB, LLC
The Court must decide whether it should quash a subpoena requiring Coptic Orthodox Church Bishop [redacted ] to testify in a matrimonial action over his objection, allegedly based on religious doctrine, where his testimony is necessary to determine whether or not he conducted a wedding ceremony for the two parties to this action.
The parties here disagree about whether they were married in 2017, with plaintiff stating that they were married, and defendant stating that the Bishop "blessed" their relationship, but did not marry them. The parties agree that their infant son was baptized, as planned, at the [redacted ] on [redacted ] 2017. The parties also agree that Plaintiff mother L.F., who had previously been baptized by another church, which baptism and conversion from another religion was not recognized by the subject church herein, was then baptized in front of many witnesses in the church in an unplanned ceremony immediately following the child's baptism. What occurred next is the crux of the parties’ dispute. Defendant father M.A. asserts that the Bishop, the subject of the instant subpoena, who had conducted the two baptisms, then proceeded to perform a family blessing. Plaintiff mother, on the other hand, claims that the Bishop offered to marry the parties, which was apparently a "great honor," and that he then performed the parties’ previously unplanned wedding ceremony after she agreed to be baptized in the Coptic Church. The Bishop performed the ceremonies in a combination of the English, Arabic and Coptic languages and most of the guests, all of whom had only been invited to the child's baptism, were not sure whether or not the final ceremony was a marriage ceremony: some aligned with Plaintiff asserted it was a wedding, and some guests aligned with Defendant have sworn that a family blessing took place.
As the Bishop has refused to testify as to which ceremony he performed, allegedly because his religious conviction prevents him from testifying in a civil action involving church members, and the parties and their witnesses have testified to diametrically conflicting views as to which ceremony took place, the Court and the parties have all asked the Bishop to testify. Defendant served a valid subpoena upon the Bishop and the Bishop, through counsel, has moved to quash the subpoena, stating through counsel and an affidavit from a Coptic theologian, that it is contrary to the tenets of the religion for the Bishop to testify in civilian court "brother against brother." Bishop A.B.1 has not filed an affidavit in support of the motion to quash.
Both parties expressly waived any privilege and seek to compel the Bishop's testimony.
Much is at stake here in addition to simply whether or not the parties are legally married, including numerous related rights and obligations. The child has a presumed interest, certainly in the long run, as to whether or not his parents are married. More to the point of the parties, there appear to be millions of dollars at stake in Plaintiff's ancillary claim for equitable distribution of marital property, as well as a claim for spousal support. Defendant claims that the financial interests at stake, most of which are in his own name, belong almost exclusively to him as his own property, as the parties are not legally married.
The first obvious question is whether there is a valid marriage certificate, which, however, is not legally required in light of the claim of a religious marriage such as that which allegedly took place. DRL §§ 12, 25. The parties dispute even whether such a marriage certificate exists. Defendant father denies the existence of any marriage certificate. Plaintiff mother testified at trial that she found a copy of an unsigned marriage certificate in the visor of defendant's car, which document was produced during the ongoing trial of this matrimonial action. Of course, the church clergy could inform all as to whether there is a marriage certificate. The sole custodian of the records, however, is the priest of the church, Father H.H., who has also refused to testify or present any evidence in this action. Father H.H. also participated in each of the three ceremonies on [redacted ] 2017 in the church, but was not the officiant that day. Plaintiff has issued a subpoena to Father H.H., who moved through the same counsel who represents the Bishop and the Coptic [church], to quash that subpoena. As there were arguably technical defects in the manner of service of the subpoena upon Father H.H., Plaintiff has withdrawn the subpoena at the Court's suggestion and will await the Court's determination as to whether it will compel Bishop A.B. to testify, in which case Father H.H.’s testimony may not be necessary.
Counsel for clergy has produced what he asserts are the only documents his clients have concerning the day in question, which documents included a baptismal certificate for the child, a baptismal certificate for the mother, and a typed almost blank marriage certificate, with the parties’ names and the date of [redacted ] 2017, but no signatures by the parties, the clergy, or any witnesses. The parties agree that there are signed baptismal certificates for the child and the mother dated [redacted ] 2017.
Particularly given the absence of testimony by the clergy conducting the ceremonies, both parties have presented extensive direct, cross, redirect and re-cross examinations of non-party witnesses, qualified as experts in the requirements of a Coptic Church wedding ceremony who, in several days of testimony, have presented directly contradictory opinions as to whether a Coptic marriage ceremony took place on [redacted ] 2017.
Bishop A.B. has already directly participated in this action, when he filed an affidavit in support of Defendant in early 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant action for divorce and ancillary relief on [redacted ] 2021. On or about [redacted ] 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this matrimonial action (by motion sequence 002), alleging that the parties were never married. Plaintiff opposed, asserting that the parties were married on [redacted ] 2017. The parties do agree that they never obtained a New York State governmental marriage license (although also acknowledging that a license need not be required in New York if there was a valid religious marriage, see DRL §§ 12, 25 ). Specifically, Defendant alleges in his moving affidavit and in his testimony during the evidentiary hearing upon the motion that the presiding officiant, Bishop A.B., offered to "bless" the parties’ relationship as the parents of the child being baptized, and that the Bishop then performed such a "blessing," but that the Bishop did not marry the parties. Defendant alleges that there were no vows, and that the parties never agreed to marry one another. Defendant alleges that the parties have never been married. In support of his motion, Defendant attached a January 21, 2022 sworn affidavit from the same Bishop A.B., with this case's caption (NYSCEF doc. 71), as well as several photographs from that day and additional affidavits.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that the parties were married that day. She states that Defendant was raised in the Coptic Church, and that he originally planned for [their child] to be baptized that day in his church as the Bishop was to be at the church that day. According to both parties, for Defendant in particular, it was a great honor to have the Bishop perform their child's baptism. The parties also agree that Defendant arranged for a post-ceremony celebration at a nearby restaurant for the many guests that day. Going into the day, Plaintiff did not know that she would be asked to be married or baptized — she explains that she had to be baptized in the Coptic Church before she could be married in the Coptic church, and therefore, when she agreed to be married, she was first baptized (after the child's baptism, which was the first event), and then, the parties were married. Plaintiff states that they were married according to Coptic religious practices, as she understands them, including both parties wearing red ribbons on their head, Defendant donning a specific robe (what she states is "traditional Coptic wedding clothing"), that he did not wear a robe during their child's baptism, and the couple walked around the church, photographs of which she attaches, along with affidavits of two witnesses from that day. She also attaches certain texts from Defendant referring to Plaintiff as "wife." Each side has also made additional arguments, and attached additional exhibits and affidavits in support of their position, not necessarily addressed herein on this motion.
Based on the contradictory affidavits, including in significant part the affidavit of the alleged marriage officiant, Bishop A.B., (whose affidavit stated that he "blessed" the relationship but did not marry the parties), this Court granted Defendant’ motion to dismiss the matrimonial action to the "extent of the court conducting an evidentiary hearing concerning whether or not the parties are legally married" (Interim Order on Motion seq. 002, NYSCEF doc. 133). The Court set a pretrial conference, which both parties, each with counsel, attended, and thereafter, the Court ordered a detailed pretrial conference order, on consent of each side as to each deadline in that pretrial conference order. (Order, NYSCEF doc. 169). The hearing was set for [redacted ], 2022. Id. For various reasons, both parties did not timely comply with the pretrial order, and [redacted ] 2022...
To continue reading
Request your trial