Wildenstein v. Wildenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wildenstein v. Wildenstein

249 A.D.2d 12, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 12 (Wildenstein v. Wildenstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wildenstein v. Wildenstein, 249 A.D.2d 12, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—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, [13]*13210 AD2d 138; Davis v Davis, 144 AD2d 621, 622). As for defendant’s forum non conveniens motion, its denial was proper given the nexus of this action with New York County (cf., Neuter, Ltd. v Citibank, 239 AD2d 213).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—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, [13]*13210 AD2d 138; Davis v Davis, 144 AD2d 621, 622). As for defendant’s forum non conveniens motion, its denial was proper given the nexus of this action with New York County (cf., Neuter, Ltd. v Citibank, 239 AD2d 213).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 12, 671 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wildenstein-v-wildenstein-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack