New York Civil Court Judge Breaks Precedent Regarding Polyamorous Relationships
The Civil Court of the City of New York’s Judge, Karen May Bacdayan, broke precedent last year in her ruling that polyamorous partners, called “non-traditional” family members, should not automatically be denied legal rights. On September 23, Judge Bacdayan held in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill that the third partner, respondent Markyus O’Neill, to married couple Scott Anderson and Robert Romano was allowed to renew a lease in Anderson’s name. In the United States, the rights of polyamorous couples are confusing and seemingly non-existent; however, the general consensus is that the married spouses retain legal rights that the other partners do not receive. Therefore, Judge Bacdayan’s ruling in West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill could have a dramatic impact on future polyamorous relationship case law if recognized by upper courts both on a state and federal level, having the potential to set a precedent on an otherwise legally unrecognized group.
The history of polyamorous rights is riddled with restrictions. In 1878, the Supreme Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that bigamy was not constitutionally protected. This ruling remains precedent today; no individual can marry more than one person. Due to Reynolds and other cases, when married couples bring in a third partner, the third partner is denied most rights and is not a legally recognized spouse. This partner cannot retain property or inheritance rights, interest in retirement assets and medical benefits, alimony or palimony, and Social Security benefits based on the earnings of the married partner(s).
However, some states have recently moved toward recognition of multi-partner relationships. In February of 2020, the Utah legislature passed the “Bigamy Bill,” which decriminalized bigamy, classifying it as a misdemeanor instead of a felony. Other states have followed similar trends regarding multi-person relationships. Different versions of the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Parentage Act (created by the Uniform Law Commission), which contains a provision recognizing multi-parent recognition, have been passed in California, Washington, Maine, Vermont, and Delaware. Judge Bacdayan highlighted that “Courts in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana have also supported the idea of third parents.” Three Boston-area municipalities, Somerville, Cambridge, and Arlington, became the first to extend the definition of domestic legal partnerships to polyamorous relationships.
Therefore, if upper level state and federal courts recognize Judge Bacdayan’s analysis that third partners of polyamorous relationships retain legal rights, this could dramatically change the legal status of polyamorous couples, reversing a history of insecurity. By refusing to follow precedent and issuing a summary judgment, she instead stated that O’Neill is entitled to having his claim heard. This is a right not traditionally afforded to polyamorous partners.
Judge Bacdayan’s ruling was highly influenced by the 1989 case Braschi v. Stahl Assocs. Co. where the New York State Court of Appeals held that same-sex partners were considered family, moving away from the nuclear definition of a family. Thus, a same-sex partner could continue to live in a rent stabilized apartment after their partner died (even if only the deceased’s name was on the original lease), very similar to O’Neill’s case as both reference rent leases and more inclusive definitions of relationships.
Referencing this case, Judge Bacdyan stated that polyamorous relationships could also fall under a more inclusive interpretation of a “non-traditional family” in a modern context. She also stated that O’Neill should be given the opportunity to “prove his relationship” with Anderson in court to make a legitimate claim to renew the lease, following the Branschi holding that “Appellant Braschi should therefore be afforded the opportunity to prove that he and Blanchard had such a household.”
There is some complexity with this case as a result of the plaintiff’s argument that additional tension existed between O’Neill and Romano over the different natures of their relationship with Anderson– this was argued to show that O’Neill was not considered anything more than a roommate. While Romano is the legal husband of Anderson, he cannot claim the lease because he did not occupy the apartment; only Anderson and O’Neill lived there permanently. In regards to the legitimacy of O’Neill’s claim, reporter Trudy Ring points out that“...If, after the trial, it is ruled that [Romano] was Anderson’s only partner, O’Neill will be evicted. However, if the ruling recognizes O’Neill as a partner of Anderson, he could win the right to stay in the apartment.” Hence, if the nature of polyamorous relationships are recognized as legitimate relationships, legal rights should be given as well.
Judge Bacdayan highlighted that Braschi was the first case where an appellate court recognized that a non-traditional, committed, and family-like relationship does not have to be heterosexual. However, while Braschi was groundbreaking for its time, Judge Bacdayan argued that deciding cases solely off of Braschi’s two-person, same-sex case may be outdated. She states, “Indeed, the definition of ‘family’ has morphed considerably since 1989. Specifically, many articles have been written about multi-person relationships in recent years, revealing a preference that for some has long been known.” She added plainly, “Do all nontraditional relationships have to comprise or include only two primary persons?”
Judge Bacdyan went further, stating that both the Braschi case and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment, fell short by limiting their protections to only two-person relationships. Judge Bacdyan stated that this case is important because “... Braschi and its progeny and Obergefell limit their holdings to two-person relationships. The instant case presents the distinct and complex issue of significant multi-person relationships.”
At a time where some states are moving to recognize and decriminalize multi-partner relationships, Judge Bacdyan’s ruling can have a dramatic impact if reinforced by upper-level state and federal courts, changing the tone about polyamorous relationships and expanding their legal rights. While this is a highly controversial topic, many see West 49th St., LLC v. O’Neill as changing the tide for a group that has a history of being denied traditional legal protections.
Edited by: Ariella Mitchell