B.S. v. F.B

883 N.Y.S.2d 458 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D reside together in a single-family residence in Yonkers. They have lived together for over 14 years, and in 1994 they both participated in a Buddhist 'marriage' ceremony. In October 2003, the parties entered into a 'civil union' in the State of Vermont. P commenced an action seeking dissolution of 'the marriage between the parties' on Domestic Relations Law§ 170 (1) grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. D is a self-employed artist and receives income in excess of $150,000 per year from family trusts. P has a disability that permits her to perform only part-time work on a sporadic basis. She is currently employed as a data collection associate with only negligible earnings and receives disability benefits $1,306 per month. D paid virtually all the household bills and covered the cost of travel and entertainment. P contributed as she was able to and devoted herself to promoting D's art, maintaining the household and caring for their dogs. P alleges that the house the parties reside in was titled in the name of a trust D established for P's benefit. D became an alcoholic and on numerous occasions became abusive both verbally and physically towards P. D began an intimate relationship with another woman and in October 2008 defendant told P that she wanted to divorce and wanted P to move out of the house. D had P served with an eviction notice that alleged P was a 'tenant at will' and demanded that P vacate the premises in Yonkers. Things got violent, and P alleged a family offense. D appeared in Family Court in Yonkers and consented to the issuance of a permanent order of protection. P then commenced this action seeking a divorce from D. D moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a valid cause of action. D states in her motion to dismiss that New York does not recognize same-sex marriage. D also argues that as there is no valid out-of-state marriage entered into by the parties that New York could recognize as a matter of comity. D also maintains that the parties' Vermont civil union is void and unenforceable.