You are here: / / Marriage Between a Half-Uncle and Half-Niece Is Not Prohibited by Domestic...
,

Marriage Between a Half-Uncle and Half-Niece Is Not Prohibited by Domestic Relations Law 5 (3)

The Court of Appeals, in answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined that a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece is not incestuous under Domestic Relations Law 5 (3).  The husband is the half-brother of the petitioner-wife's mother.  Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam and the husband is a naturalized American citizen.  An immigration judge had declared the marriage void and ordered petitioner removed from the country. Judge Smith, in one of two concurring opinions, wrote:

Section 5 of the Domestic Relations Law reads in full:

“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 or 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.”

We must decide whether subdivision 3 of this statute should be read to include a half-uncle and half-niece (or half-aunt and half-nephew). There is something to be said on both sides of this question.  * * *

Domestic Relations Law § 5 is in part a criminal statute: it says that the participants in a prohibited marriage may be fined, and may be imprisoned for up to six months. Penal Law § 255.25, using language very similar to that of Domestic Relations Law § 5 (“ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece”), makes entry into a prohibited marriage a class E felony. Where a criminal statute is ambiguous, courts will normally prefer the more lenient interpretation, and the courts of several other states have followed that rule in interpreting their criminal laws not to prohibit relationships between uncles and nieces, or aunts and nephews, of the half blood … .  * * *

We are not geneticists, and the record and the briefs in this case do not contain any scientific analysis; but neither party disputes the intuitively correct-seeming conclusion that the genetic risk in a half-uncle, half-niece relationship is half what it would be if the parties were related by the full blood. Indeed, both parties acknowledged at oral argument that the risk in a half-uncle/half-niece marriage is comparable to the risk in a marriage of first cousins. First cousins are allowed to marry in New York, and I conclude that it was not the Legislature's purpose to avert the similar, relatively small, genetic risk inherent in relationships like this one.  Nguyen v Holder, 2014 NY Slip Op 07290, CtApp 10-28-14

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE FOR “IMPAIRMENT” WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IN A RECENT VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE; IT WAS NOT CLEAR THE “IMPAIRMENT” CHARGE IN THE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT “DRIVING WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED BY DRUGS” CASE (CT APP).
THE NEW YORK CLASSROOM-SIZE REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVES, NOT DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE INDEPENDENTLY FULFILLED (CT APP).
City Employee Blocking Roadway to Facilitate Repairs Was Engaged in a Proprietary, Not a Governmental, Function–Ordinary Rules of Negligence Applied
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).
THE INTERSATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE OR PLACEMENT RELATED TO ADOPTION; THEREFORE THE ICPC DID NOT APPLY HERE WHERE FATHER, A NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENT, SOUGHT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; NORTH CAROLINA, APPLYING THE ICPC, DID NOT APPROVE PLACEMENT WITH FATHER; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF FATHER’S CUSTODY PETITION ON THAT GROUND WAS REVERSED (CT APP).
THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S CLAIM THAT OTHER JURORS HAD EXHIBITED RACIAL BIAS DURING DELIBERATIONS AND PROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A MISTRIAL; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (CT APP).
APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.
SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Preamble” to Miranda Warnings Used In Queens County Undermined... Where a Witness Is Incarcerated Pursuant to the Judiciary Law, After A Finding...