What Constitutes a Legally Valid Marriage in New York State? Key Takeaways from Spalter v. Spalter (2025)

In a recent decision, Spalter v. Spalter, the New York Appellate Division provided critical clarification about what constitutes a legally valid marriage under New York law. This ruling is significant for those entering religious or non-traditional marriage ceremonies and highlights the interplay between religious practices, state law, and the legal status of marriage.

The parties in Spalter participated in a traditional Jewish wedding ceremony officiated by a rabbi. Key aspects of the ceremony included:

• 29 guests present under a chuppah.

• The signing of a ketubah (a Jewish marriage contract).

• A separately signed document stating that the marriage was "binding under Jewish law" but not "legally recognized" under New York law.

• An arbitration agreement referring to the parties as "husband-to-be" and "wife-to-be" and delegating marital disputes to a Beth Din (Jewish court).

However, the couple did not obtain a civil marriage license and allegedly held themselves out as single, living largely separate lives for social and religious purposes. They shared four children, three of whom have special needs.

The court ultimately ruled that their marriage was valid under New York law despite the lack of a marriage license and the parties’ stated intent to avoid legal recognition.

The decision in Spalter rests on several foundational principles from New York’s Domestic Relations Law:

1. Presumption of Validity
   New York law strongly favors the validity of a marriage, especially when questions of children’s legitimacy are involved. This presumption carries significant weight and is difficult to rebut.

2. Requirements for Marriage Under New York Law

   • Domestic Relations Law § 12: A marriage solemnized by a clergyperson with at least one witness is valid if the parties declare their intent to take each other as spouses. No specific form of ceremony is required.

   • Domestic Relations Law § 13: Requires a marriage license for those intending to marry in New York. However:

   • Domestic Relations Law § 25: Failure to procure a marriage license does not invalidate a marriage solemnized by a clergyperson.

3. Marriage as a Legal Status
   Marriage is more than a private contract—it is a legal status governed by the state. The parties' intent to avoid legal recognition does not negate the state's authority to deem the marriage valid when statutory requirements are met.

4. Consent to Marriage
   Even if the parties signed a document indicating their intent not to marry under New York law legally, the court found that their acknowledgment of entering a "marriage that is binding under Jewish law" demonstrated consent to the marriage.

5. Tax Return Statements
   The court rejected the argument that a spouse listing themselves as unmarried on tax returns prevents them from asserting marital status in court. Marital status is a legal determination, not solely defined by prior statements on tax filings.

The decision underscores several key takeaways for individuals in New York:

• Religious Ceremonies Can Create Legally Valid Marriages
  Couples who participate in religious ceremonies, even without obtaining a marriage license, may find their union legally recognized if the ceremony meets the requirements of Domestic Relations Law §§ 12 and 25.

• Intent Alone May Not Prevent Legal Marriage
  The parties’ intent not to enter a legally recognized marriage is not decisive if they consented to a religious marriage that meets the state’s legal requirements.

• Protect Your Legal Intentions
  To avoid unintended consequences, individuals who wish to prevent their marriage from being legally recognized should seek legal counsel before entering any ceremony, religious or otherwise, that could meet the statutory requirements for marriage.

• Tax Filings Are Not Determinative
  Filing taxes as unmarried does not automatically bar a party from asserting marital status in court.

For individuals in situations similar to Spalter v. Spalter, the following options are worth considering:

1. Legal Counsel Before Ceremony
   Engage a family law attorney to ensure that a religious or ceremonial union aligns with your legal intentions.

2. Post-Ceremony Legal Action
   If disputes arise regarding the validity of a marriage, parties can seek declaratory relief in court to determine their marital status.

3. Prenuptial Agreements
   While not addressed in this case, prenuptial agreements can be an effective tool for defining financial and legal rights, even in religious marriages.

4. Clarity Around Intentions
   Communicate and document intentions regarding your relationship's legal status to avoid future ambiguity or disputes.

The Spalter case highlights the complexity of New York’s marriage laws and the challenges that can arise from religious ceremonies that blur the lines between religious and legal obligations. At Mindin & Mindin, PC, we specialize in helping clients navigate these sensitive and intricate matters. If you have questions about your marital status or need guidance on marriage, divorce, or family law issues, contact us today at 888.501.3292 to schedule a consultation.

Your peace of mind is our priority. Let us help you achieve clarity and resolution.

---

(Full Case:
The parties took part in a religious wedding ceremony officiated by a rabbi under a chuppah, with 29 guests and featuring traditional Jewish rites and blessings. They obtained a ketubah [Jewish wedding contract] which was signed by two witnesses, signed a separate document that stated they were entering into a “marriage that is binding under Jewish law” but not “legally recognized” under New York law and signed an arbitration agreement referring to them as “husband-to-be” and “wife-to-be,” in which they authorized the Beth Din to preside over marital disputes. However, they never obtained a civil marriage license, and according to defendant, held themselves out as single, lived separate lives and only entered into the religious marriage to facilitate their children's acceptance into day schools and the family into synagogues. At the time of the ceremony the parties had two children together, and now have four, three of which are children with special needs.
The motion court properly determined that the parties’ marriage is valid (Domestic Relations Law §§ 10, 12, 25), as defendant failed to overcome New York's strong presumption favoring the validity of marriage. This strong presumption of the validity of marriage is even greater where, as here, the legitimacy of children is concerned.
Domestic Relations Law § 12, provides, as relevant, that no particular form or ceremony is required when a marriage is solemnized as herein provided by a clergyman if the parties solemnly declare in the presence of a clergyman and at least one other witness that they take each other as spouses. Although Domestic Relations Law § 13 requires all persons intending to be married in New York to obtain a marriage license, § 25 provides that nothing in Domestic Relations Law article 3 shall be construed to render void by reason of a failure to procure a marriage license any marriage solemnized between persons of full age. As the parties’ marriage was solemnized by a rabbi with witnesses in a traditional Jewish ceremony, their failure to obtain a marriage license does not invalidate the marriage.
That the parties may not have intended to have their marriage legally recognized under New York law is not dispositive because while marriage is a contract between two consenting individuals, it is a special status governed by laws and the State and not determined by those entering the contract.
Although Domestic Relations Law § 10 clearly requires that both parties consent to the marriage, that requirement was met here. The record shows that, while the parties signed a document that stated that their marriage was not “legally recognized” under New York law, the parties consented to the marriage, especially in light of their acknowledgment in that same document that they were “entering into a marriage that is binding under Jewish law.”
Even though defendant claims that plaintiff has listed herself as unmarried in her tax returns, this does not prevent her from arguing that the parties were married. The proposition that “a party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in an income tax return” (Mahoney–Buntzman v. Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415, 422, 881 N.Y.S.2d 369, 909 N.E.2d 62 [2009]), does not apply to the question of marital status, which is a mixed question of law and fact.

Spalter v. Spalter, – NYS3d – , 2025 WL 51871 (1st Dep’t. 2025))