Upon the following papers read on the motion, to wit:1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion filed April 15, 2019; and2. Affidavit & Affirmation in Opposition.DECISION & ORDER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion which seeks leave to amend his Verified Complaint. Defendant opposes the application in its entirety.Brief BackgroundMany decisions issued in the family/matrimonial field of law typically start in a similar fashion, to wit: “The parties to the action were married on…” It is impossible for this Court to state the parties’ date (or length) of marriage at the outset of this decision since that date is one of the biggest issues in the matter, sub judice. Here, the parties are not quibbling over a difference of a day, a week, or a month, but an insurmountable chasm of 7 years and 4 months — a generational abyss.The Defendant (“Wife”) claims the parties’ marriage took place on August 16, 1998 in Canada and the Plaintiff (“Husband”) now argues, as further discussed infra, the parties’ marriage took place on December 14, 2005 in New York City. The parties have three (3) children together, to wit: Sha. S., born May 10, 1999; Sat. S., born February 26, 2002; and Sam. S., born August 7, 2004.The Husband commenced the action for divorce on January 29, 2018. The Husband’s Verified Complaint was verified on February 7, 2018 wherein the Husband initially lists the parties’ date of marriage as “August 16, 1998, in the City of New York, State of New York, in a civil and religious ceremony.” See Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s moving papers. The Preliminary Conference was held on June 7, 2018. It was at the Preliminary Conference that the Husband first raised the issue of the date of marriage and same was noted “in dispute” on the Preliminary Conference Stipulation/Order. See Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s moving papers. The Court also notes that the Husband lists the parties’ date of marriage as August 16, 1998 on his Statement of Net Worth, which was notarized on June 6, 2018 — one day before the Preliminary Conference was held and the Husband first voiced his opposition to the 1998 date of marriage.As this case proceeded, the parties engaged in discovery related to both the finances and the proof of the parties’ date of marriage. However, it was not until April 15, 2019 that Plaintiff filed the instant application seeking leave to amend his Verified Complaint to change the date of marriage.Leave to Amend ComplaintPursuant to C.P.L.R. Rule 3025(a), “[a] party may amend his pleading once without leave of court within twenty days after its service, or at any time before the period for responding to it expires, or within twenty days after service of a pleading responding to it.” Here, the Wife filed her answer to the Husband’s complaint on or about March 27, 2018. Therefore, C.P.L.R. Rule 3025(a) does not apply.Pursuant to C.P.L.R. Rule 3025(b), “A party may amend his…pleading…by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court…Leave shall be freely given upon such terms as may be just…”The general policy is to permit a party to amend a pleading, for almost any purpose, unless the adverse party claims a prejudice. (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C3025:4); see also McCaskey, Davies & Assocs., Inc. v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 59 N.Y.2d 755, 757 (1983) (noting, “[l]eave to amend the pleadings ‘shall be freely given’ absent prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay.”). While mere lateness alone will not bar an application to amend, when coupled with significant prejudice to the other side a court may deny such an application. Similarly, where the lack of merit of the proposed change is clear, a motion for leave to amend should be denied. See e.g. Lucido v. Mancuso, 49 A.D.3d 22, 226 (2d Dept. 2008). Most notably, “[i]f the opposing party can show prejudice, the amendment will not be granted.” (Patrick M. Connors, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C3025:6).Domestic Relations Law §11 states in relevant part, “if the marriage was performed outside New York and solemnized by a person authorized to solemnize marriages under the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was contracted, the marriage…will be recognized as valid.” Therefore, if there is compliance with Domestic Relations Law §11, the parties need not be issued a marriage license by the civil authorities as required by statute and the marriage would still be valid. See e.g. Springer v. Springer, 189 Misc. 820 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1947).The analysis of the aforementioned authority requires this Court to examine the parties’ respective renditions of their marriage.The Husband argues on August 16, 1998, the parties had a marriage ceremony in Canada and it was simply that — a “marriage ceremony”. The Husband further states that the parties were not formally married and did not acquire a marriage certificate. The Husband claims that the parties had a subsequent “marriage ceremony” on December 14, 2005 in New York and the parties obtained a “Certificate of Marriage”. See Exhibit D to Plaintiff’s moving papers.The Wife argues that her marriage to her Husband was a traditional, arranged Muslim wedding which took place on August 16, 1998 in Canada by an “Imam”. A letter from the Imam who presided over the parties wedding is annexed to Defendant’s opposition papers as Exhibit B. The Imam is a licensed minister in the Province of Ontario, Canada and is authorized to perform religious marriages.1 The Wife further annexed a wedding picture and invitation as Exhibit C to her opposition as further proof of the August 16, 1998 marriage. In the picture, the Wife is wearing a traditional white wedding dress and on the invitation, the parties’ respective families “request the honor of your presence at the marriage of their children Shazia and Sareer on Sunday, the sixteenth of August Nineteen hundred and ninety-eight). See Exhibit C to the Wife’s opposition papers. The Wife credibly states that the Husband was given the parties’ Nikkah (their signed religious marriage contract) in or around August 16, 1998 as it is typical of the Husband in the Muslim faith to obtain this document.The most pursuasive piece of evidence presented to the Court is Exhibit D to Defendant’s opposition. Exhibit D is the Wife’s application to become an American citizen, which was signed by both the parties on April 24, 2004. The Wife’s surname is listed as “Sayar” (her married name) throughout the entire document; the Husband’s information, including his name, date of birth and social security number is listed under the “spouse” section on page 6; the parties’ date of marriage is listed as August 16, 1998; and on page 12 both parties declare “under penalties of perjury” that the information provided was true and accurate and affix their signature to the document. See Exhibit D to Wife’s opposition.The Husband does not contest any of the arguments made by the Wife.With respect to what the Husband identifies as a “Certificate of Marriage”, upon review of Exhibit D to the Plaintiff’s moving papers, same is a “Certificate of Marriage Registration” not a Certificate of Marriage as the Husband purports it to be. This document is simply proof that the parties’ registered their marriage in the State of New York. See e.g. Domestic Relations Law §14-a.Based upon the foregoing, the Husband’s application which seeks leave to amend his Verified Complaint must be denied. The Wife would be significantly prejudice if the Court permitted to allow for leave to amend. Specifically, the Wife argues that if the date of marriage is changed from 1998 to 2005, her interest and claims to any equitable distribution of any potential marital property would be severely limited. See Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(1)(c). This Court agrees. Additionally, as discussed supra, the Husband’s proposed amended pleading lacks merit. See Domestic Relations Law §11.Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application which seeks leave to amend his Verified Complaint is denied; and it is furtherORDERED that all relief requested not specifically addressed herein is denied.The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.Dated: June 20, 2019Central Islip, New York
