In re May's Estate,
305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 4 (1953).

Procedure: Petitioner daughter obtained letters of administration of the estate of her decedent mother, and respondent husband objected. The daughter appealed an order of the Ulster County Surrogate's Court (New York) that reversed the order granting letters of administration to her and that remanded the case with instructions that the husband be granted the letters of administration.


Facts: Sam May (D) and his niece, Fannie, both residents of New York, where such marriages are not permitted, went to be married in Rhode Island. A Rhode Island statute permitted marriages within the degrees of affinity and consanguinity permitted by the Jewish faith, to which the couple adhered. Upon Fannie's death, a daughter of the marriage (P) sought letters of administration of her mother's estate. D objected and sought letters as a surviving spouse. The trial court held the marriage invalid and granted letters to P. The appellate division reversed with instructions to grant letters to D. P appeals.

Issue: Is the marriage of an uncle and a niece, which was valid under the law of the place where celebrated, valid in a state where such a marriage would not be permitted?

Rule: The legality of a marriage between persons sui juris is to be determined by the law of the place it is celebrated.

Holding:The Court of Appeals, Lewis, C. J., held that the New York statute declaring a marriage between an uncle and niece incestuous and void did not interdict the father's marriage to decedent, who was his niece, in Rhode Island at a time when such marriage was valid under the statutes of such state because the parties were persons of the Jewish faith and within the degrees of affinity and consanguinity allowed by their religion.

Analysis: The mother, who was the husband's niece by half-blood, and the husband were married in Rhode Island where their marriage was valid. The mother died in New York where the marriage was invalid. The husband objected to the issuance of letters of administration to the daughter on the ground that, as surviving spouse, he had the paramount right to administer the mother's estate. The court upheld the order reversing the order issuing the letters of administration to the daughter. The court held that the legality of the marriage had to be determined by the law of the state where it was celebrated. The marriage was valid because it was valid under Rhode Island law. N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 5 did not regulate marriages of New York domiciliaries that were solemnized in another state and did not void the husband's marriage even though the marriage would have been void if performed in New York. As the marriage was not offensive to the public sense of morality to a degree regarded with abhorrence, it was not prohibited by natural law.