Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46370 Justice La Marca THE PARTIES divided their time between Florida and Connecticut until they bought a Freeport co-op on July 16, 2003. Defendant husband sought dismissal of plaintiff wife’s Sept. 19, 2003 divorce action, claiming that she did not live in New York for one year prior to bringing action. He also claimed that because he lives in Florida, minimal contacts for “long-arm” jurisdiction purposes were lacking. The court dismissed plaintiff’s divorce and equitable distribution claims, finding that plaintiff’s intermittent visits with her daughter in New York did not satisfy “continuous” residency for one year prior to commencement of action as required by Domestic Relations Law �230. However, crediting plaintiff’s claims that the parties lived in the co-op until defendant’s departure and abandonment, the court concluded that pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules �302(b), defendant had the necessary minimal contacts to provide it with personal jurisdiction over him for spousal support and other ancillary claims.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.