N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Domestic Relations / ARTICLE Marriages
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 5 (2026)

Incestuous and void marriages

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 5. Incestuous and void marriages. A marriage is incestuous and void
whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either:
  1. An ancestor and a descendant;
  2. A brother and sister of either the whole or the half blood;
  3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.
  If a marriage prohibited by the foregoing provisions of this section
be solemnized it shall be void, and the parties thereto shall each be
fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars and may, in
the discretion of the court in addition to said fine, be imprisoned for
a term not exceeding six months. Any person who shall knowingly and
wilfully solemnize such marriage, or procure or aid in the solemnization
of the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined
or imprisoned in like manner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1989–2014 · leading case: Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1 (N.Y. 2006). · cites it 4× “" Domestic Relations Law § 15 (1) (a) requires town and city clerks to obtain specified information from "the groom" and "the bride.”
Godfrey v. Spano, 920 N.E.2d 328 (N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “Although New York law prohibits such a marriage as incestuous (Domestic Relations Law § 5), Rhode Island law at the time permitted marriage among blood relatives "`solemnized among the Jews, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by their religion'" ( id.”
People v. Matthie, 34 A.D.3d 987 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006). · cites it 2× “25 among cases addressing an analogous provision of the Domestic Relations Law (see Domestic Relations Law § 5; Matter of Anonymous, 106 Misc 2d 792, 798 [1981]; Matter of Bagnardi v Hartnett, 81 Misc 2d 323, 324-325 [1975]), it remains an open question whether, under the…”
Campbell v. Thomas, 73 A.D.3d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010). “The Domestic Relations *111 Law deems such a marriage to be voidable, meaning that the marriage “is void from the time its nullity is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction” (Domestic Relations Law § 7). This status is distinct from that of certain other…”
Samuels v. New York State Dep't of Health, 29 A.D.3d 9 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006). “After defendants answered, the parties moved for summary judgment. In December 2004, Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion, granted defendants’ cross motion and dismissed the complaint.”
Hernandez v. Robles, 7 Misc. 3d 459 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). “(Domestic Relations Law § 5; see Goodridge, 440 Mass at 319-320, 798 NE2d at 952-953.”
Langan v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 196 Misc. 2d 440 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). “Matter of May, 305 NY 486 [1953] [upheld validity of a 32-year-old marriage between uncle and niece valid pursuant to their faith and lawfully contracted in the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the prohibition of Domestic Relations Law § 5 (3)]; see also Ferraro v Ferraro,…”
Godfrey v. Spano, 15 Misc. 3d 809 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). “(Matter of May, supra, 305 NY at 493 ; Fisher v Fisher, 250 NY 313 [1929], supra; see, Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 5, at 21-23.) I am not bound by the holdings of courts of coordinate jurisdiction (Mountain…”
People v. Burch, 256 A.D.2d 1233 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1998). “The victims testified at trial that defendant was their father, thus precluding marriage between them (see, Domestic Relations Law § 5 [1]). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.”
Ranieri v. Ranieri, 146 A.D.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1989). “In both Matter of Simms ( 26 NY2d 163 ) and Matter of Saffer ( 39 Misc 2d 691 , affd 20 AD2d 849 ), the marriages were incestuous under New York law (see, Domestic Relations Law § 5) but the antenuptial agreements were nevertheless enforced on the ground, inter alia, that the…”
Nguyen v. Holder, 21 N.E.3d 1023 (N.Y. 2014). · cites it 7× “A marriage where a husband is the half brother of the wife’s mother is not void as incestuous under Domestic Relations Law § 5 (3). Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.”
Seymour v. Holcomb, 26 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2006). “Moreover, we find no merit in the City’s argument that the Domestic Relations Law does not currently set forth marriage as being between one woman and one man. The specific wording and historical context of Domestic Relations Law articles 2 and 3 (enacted approximately 100 years…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.