Opinion
MDL 1448 (RWS), 02 Civ. 439 (RWS), 02 Civ. 4765 (RWS), 03 Civ. 2237 (RWS).
May 29, 2007
OPINION
Plaintiff Yanet Dishmey Rosario de George ("de George") has filed a motion on order to show cause for a declaration that Denise Valderrama ("Valderrama") is not the surviving spouse of decedent Milton George ("George") because Valderrama's marriage to George is void as a sham marriage.
Facts
George was killed in crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 12, 2001. Dawind George ("Dawind"), George's daughter, and Maria Diaz ("Diaz"), George's domestic partner at the time of the crash, were appointed co-administrators of the George estate. In that capacity, Dawind and Diaz agreed to settle with defendants American Airlines and Airbus, subject to the entry of a compromise order approving the settlement and directing distribution.
Both Valderrama and de George claim the right to share in the estate's wrongful death settlement as George's surviving spouse. George and Valderrama were married in New York County on August 18, 1989. De George has alleged that George entered into this marriage for the sole purpose of establishing permanent residency in the United States. Though they no longer cohabited at the time of crash — and indeed, George and Diaz had been living together since 1992 and had a son, Kelvin, in 1993 — George and Valderrama never divorced or otherwise dissolved the marriage. On April 16, 2001, de George purported to marry George in the Dominican Republic
Discussion
This Court has addressed the precise issue raised in this motion in the related case of Carty v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005). In Carty, Fabrizio Carty (the decedent's husband or "Carty") and Olga Garcia (the decedent's mother or "Garcia") each sought a judgment determining Garcia's rights of participation in the proceeds of any settlement in the wrongful death action arising from the death of Genimiz Garcia Carty (the decedent, or "Genimiz") in the crash of American Airlines Flight 587. Garcia claimed that the decedent's husband was not entitled to share in the distribution of any wrongful death settlement because his "sole motivation for marrying Genemiz was to obtain legal residency status. . . ." 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415, at *16.
After confirming its authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 and 57 to provide declaratory relief, the Court held that the dispute satisfied the case and controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. For the same reasons elucidated in Carty, the Court has similar authority in the instant case. 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415, at *6-*16.
De George asserts that federal immigration law should govern the validity of the George/Valderrama marriage. However, the issue in this case is not the validity of the marriage as such, but rather whether Valderrama is eligible to collect from the George estate as his surviving spouse. This issue is governed by the New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law. See Carty, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415, at *16; Estate of Julia Dominguez, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1596, at *24-*27 (Sur.Ct. Bronx Co. Nov. 18, 2002).
Under New York law, "the grounds for disqualifying a spouse from recovering wrongful death damages are rather narrow." Carty, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415 at *26. Specifically, a husband or wife is entitled to collect as a surviving spouse
unless it is established satisfactorily to the court having jurisdiction of the action or proceeding that:
(1) A final decree or judgment of divorce, of annulment or declaring the nullity of a marriage or dissolving such marriage on the ground of absence, recognized as valid under the law of this state, was in effect when the deceased spouse died.
(2) The marriage was void as incestuous under section five of the domestic relations law, bigamous under section six thereof, or a prohibited remarriage under section eight thereof.
(3) The spouse had procured outside of this state a final decree or judgment of divorce from the deceased spouse, of annulment or declaring the nullity of the marriage with the deceased spouse or dissolving such marriage on the ground of absence, not recognized as valid under the law of this state.
(4) A final decree or judgment of separation, recognized as valid under the law of this state, was rendered against the spouse, and such decree or judgment was in effect when the deceased spouse died.
(5) The spouse abandoned the deceased spouse, and such abandonment continued until the time of death.
(6) A spouse who, having the duty to support the other spouse, failed or refused to provide for such spouse though he or she had the means or ability to do so, unless such marital duty was resumed and continued until the death of the spouse having the need of support.
N.Y. Est. Powers Trusts L. § 5-1.2(a).
In the instant case, de George has alleged that the marriage of Valderrama and George was a sham, entered into for the sole purpose of enabling George to establish residence in the United States. While such "green card marriages" may violate United States immigration laws or be grounds for dissolving or annulling the marriage under the New York Domestic Relations Law, it is the intestacy law of New York that govern the distribution of George's estate.
As this Court stated in Carty, "the underlying motivation for [the marriage] is irrelevant to the question how the proceeds from the . . . wrongful death claim should be distributed." 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8415 at *30. De George has not alleged, let alone made a showing, that any of the six circumstances that would disqualify Valderrama from inheriting as a surviving spouse pertain.
Accordingly, de George's motion is denied.
It is so ordered.