Majority
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered October 30, 1997, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on ground that the durational residency requirement of Domestic Relations Law § 230 had not been satisfied and on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The durational residency requirement of Domestic Relations Law § 230 is satisfied herein by evidence that, for two years prior to commencement of the action, the parties regularly returned, as part of their international life style, to reside in the New York County home where they raised their two children, and that there was no other place to which they returned so frequently of with such regularity (see, Wittich v Wittich,
We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
Cases cited
- Davis v. Davis 144 AD2d 621 at 622 p. 13
- Neuter, Ltd. v. Citibank, N. A. 239 AD2d 213 p. 13