Dickerson v. Thompson
928 N.Y.S.2d 97
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiffs and defendants are New York residents who formed a Vermont civil union in April 2003.
- Plaintiff sought dissolution of the Vermont civil union and related equitable relief because Vermont residency prevented dissolution there.
- Supreme Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which this Court later reversed in Dickerson I, recognizing comity and subject matter jurisdiction.
- On remand, Supreme Court granted relief declaring the parties free from the civil union but denied dissolution.
- The court ultimately held that equity could grant dissolution of the Vermont civil union despite absence of a New York statute authorizing such relief.
- The record shows substantial abuse by the defendant, separation since 2006, and no likelihood of resumption of the civil union; plaintiff would otherwise have a Vermont dissolution remedy but for Vermont’s residency requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY Supreme Court may dissolve a Vermont civil union. | Dickerson I permits equity dissolution via comity and jurisdiction. | No New York statutory mechanism for dissolving an out-of-state civil union. | Yes; equity power allows dissolution. |
| Whether dissolution is warranted given abuse and separation. | Equity should prevent injustice by ending the civil union. | Dissolution warranted due to abuse, separation, and Vermont remedy barriers. | |
| Impact of Vermont residency and related statutes on relief. | Residency barriers should not bar equitable dissolution. | Residency barriers remedied by equitable dissolution; absence of NY DRL dissolution mechanism acknowledged. | |
| Effect of later Marriage Equality Act on the case. | Act has no impact on the issues presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v Thompson, 73 AD3d 52 (2010) (recognition of civil union comity and SMJ on remand)
- Kaminsky v Kahn, 23 AD2d 231 (1965) (equity power to mold decrees to necessities of the case)
- Maresca v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 242 (1984) (equity jurisdiction broad and flexible)
- Buteau v Biggar, 65 AD2d 652 (1978) (equity power to provide complete relief)
- Matter of AT&T Info. Sys. v Donohue, 113 AD2d 395 (1985) (inherent authority to fashion remedies in equity)