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

N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 6 (2026)

Void marriages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 6. Void marriages. A marriage is absolutely void if contracted by a
person whose husband or wife by a former marriage is living, unless
either:
  1. Such former marriage has been annulled or has been dissolved for a
cause other than the adultery of such person; provided, that if such
former marriage has been dissolved for the cause of the adultery of such
person, he or she may marry again in the cases provided for in section
eight of this chapter and such subsequent marriage shall be valid;
  3. Such former marriage has been dissolved pursuant to section seven-a
of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1972–2016 · 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 2× “In fact, the Domestic Relations Law contains many references to married persons that demonstrate that the Legislature viewed marriage as a union between one woman and one man—as seen by references to the parties to a marriage as the "bride" and "groom" (Domestic Relations Law §…”
Ferrin v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 517 N.E.2d 1370 (N.Y. 1987). · cites it 4× “Since under plaintiffs’ analysis Domestic Relations Law § 6 (2) was the root impediment to such marriages, the argument continues that its repeal in 1981 removed the precedential and analytical bar to a life-term prisoner entering into a valid marriage contract.”
Campbell v. Thomas, 73 A.D.3d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 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…”
Mack v. Brown, 82 A.D.3d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “When the presumption is successfully rebutted, the second marriage is void ab initio (see Domestic Relations Law § 6), and is not ratified or validated by a subsequent dissolution of the first marriage (see Sanchez v Sanchez, 79 AD2d 651 [1980]; Zeitlan v Zeitlan, 31 AD2d 955,…”
Calim of Gomez v. Windows On the World, 23 A.D.3d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “atter of Esmond v Lyons Bar & Grill, supra at 884-885, with Matter of Brown, supra at 939, and Steele v Richardson, 472 F2d 49, 52-53 [1972]; see generally Dolan v Celebrezze, 381 F2d 231 [1967]), it is our view that Escalante has sufficiently established the vitality of her…”
People v. Mulgrave, 163 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “At that time, the defendant and the victim were living apart but, according to the testimony of the victim’s father, had not been divorced.”
In re the Est. of McDonald, 276 A.D.2d 631 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “, 132 AD2d 729 ; Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 6, C6:l, at 29).”
Lucille Steele v. Elliot Richardson, Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 472 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1972). “If substantial evidence established that either or both of these two prior marriages were initially valid and remained undissolved when appellant married the wage earner Steele, then their marriage is void under New York law, N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 6 (McKinney’s Consol.”
Ranieri v. Ranieri, 146 A.D.2d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “A close scrutiny of the six situations listed in Domestic Relations Law § 140 indicates that they correspond exactly to the substantive provisions contained in Domestic Relations Law §§ 6 and 7 (see, e.”
Hama v. RiverSource Life Ins., 39 Misc. 3d 429 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “Domestic Relations Law § 6 [1]). As time passed and parties seeking to end their marriages either found themselves locked in, or turning to increasingly fraudulent methods of “proving” adultery, the legislature expanded the grounds of divorce, including abandonment, but still…”
Hasna J. v. David N., 53 Misc. 3d 1142 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “” (Landsman v Landsman, 302 NY 45, 48 [1950]; see Domestic Relations Law § 6; see also Lipschutz v Kiderman, 76 AD3d 178 [2d Dept 2010].”
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.