Majority
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated April 21, 1988, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the hearing court properly determined that the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230 were met in this case by the defendant’s continuous residency in this State for a period of one year prior to the commencement of the action.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff wife, although
It is well settled that a person may have many residences (see, e.g., Antone v General Motors Corp., 64 NY2d 20 , 28). In this case it is clear that defendant had a residence in New York, and his regular returns to the residence during the year preceding the commencement of the action rendered him a continuous resident of this State for the purposes of Domestic Relations Law § 230. Weinstein, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur. [See, 138 Misc 2d 970 .]
Cases cited
- Antone v. General Motors Corp. 64 NY2d 20 at 28 p. 622
- Davis v. Davis 138 Misc 2d 970 p. 622