The state Court of Appeals declined yesterday to scoop up two cases seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The high court sent the cases back to mid-level courts, postponing a clear resolution of the issue.

Yesterday’s ruling follows a February decision in state Supreme Court at Manhattan by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan in favor of five same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses in New York City. She ruled that the state law forbidding same-sex couples to marry violates the state Constitution.

Lambda Legal, which is representing the New York City couples, and the city’s corporation counsel quickly filed requests for the Court of Appeals to hear the case on an expedited basis, skipping the Appellate Division. Yesterday’s Court of Appeals ruling denied without comment those requests, as well as a request made in a similar case, Samuels v. New York State Department of Health, which has been playing out in Albany County. Three additional cases concerning same-sex marriage are also pending in the appellate courts.

Both Mayor Bloomberg and the same-sex couples in the city’s case expressed frustration with yesterday’s ruling.

Mr. Bloomberg first said publicly last month that he thinks same-sex couples should be able to wed when he announced that the city would appeal Justice Ling-Cohan’s decision. Yesterday he called the issue one of “statewide importance,” and said the high court’s decision served only to prolong what has been a drawn-out legal battle.

“As I have made clear, it is my belief that marriage should be open to gay and lesbian couples, and it is my responsibility to see that when licenses are issued they are irrevocable and backed by the full weight of the law,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a written statement. “The Court of Appeals decision not to review this case without an intermediate court ruling, after four conflicting trial court decisions, unfortunately will not give the gay and lesbian community clarity on this important issue as quickly as I had hoped.”

He said the city would “immediately issue marriage licenses” if the Court of Appeals decides that same-sex marriage is constitutional. If the court decides same-sex marriages are forbidden under existing law, he said, city officials will work with the community and lawmakers in Albany to change the law.

The senior counsel at Lambda Legal, Susan Sommer, said: “We’re disappointed that it will take more time to resolve this case and secure important protections for same-sex couples and their families.”

But Ms. Sommer said the decision would have no impact on the court’s ultimate decision.

“It’s common for the state’s high court to want the mid-level appeals court to weight in first, and this procedural development has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of the case. We’re ready to make our case for fairness at the mid-level appeals court, and we hope we’ll get the same outcome we did at the trial court,” she said. “We’re looking forward to presenting a strong and persuasive case on behalf of same-sex couples who need the protections only marriage provides.”

The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Alan Van Capelle, said the decision was a “setback” but said the extra time it affords can give gay New Yorkers a greater opportunity to sway public opinion about their cause.

“The most effective thing we can do is tell our stories to New Yorkers,” he said. “Once New Yorkers understand and can grasp how gay and lesbian families are discriminated against in the law, they will understand that we deserve the same protection every other New Yorker is entitled to.”

He said advocates for gay rights would also press Mr. Bloomberg and other elected officials to do all they can to recognize and help gay families.

According to the city’s Law Department, the high court hears cases directly from the trial-level court only when the sole remaining question concerns a law’s constitutionality. These cases were sent back down the chain because other issues besides constitutionality are involved.