N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Domestic Relations / ARTICLE Provisions Applicable to More Than One Type of Matrimonial Action
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 230 (2026)

Required residence of parties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 230. Required residence of parties. An action to annul a marriage,
or to declare the nullity of a void marriage, or for divorce or
separation may be maintained only when:
  1. The parties were married in the state and either party is a
resident thereof when the action is commenced and has been a resident
for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding, or
  2. The parties have resided in this state as husband and wife and
either party is a resident thereof when the action is commenced and has
been a resident for a continuous period of one year immediately
preceding, or
  3. The cause occurred in the state and either party has been a
resident thereof for a continuous period of at least one year
immediately preceding the commencement of the action, or
  4. The cause occurred in the state and both parties are residents
thereof at the time of the commencement of the action, or
  5. Either party has been a resident of the state for a continuous
period of at least two years immediately preceding the commencement of
the action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Unanue v. Unanue, 141 A.D.2d 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Unanue v. Unanue, 141 A.D.2d 31 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 24× “The instant appeal presents this court with the opportunity to clarify the durational residence requirements set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 230. I The plaintiff and the defendant were married in Illinois in 1966.”
Guedes v. Guedes, 45 A.D.3d 533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 6× “), entered March 1, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230, *534 and denied, as academic, her motion, inter alia, for temporary…”
Black v. Black, 108 A.D.3d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 5× “Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not meet the durational residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff established that her domicile had remained in New York although the…”
Stancil v. Stancil, 47 Misc. 3d 873 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015). · cites it 12× “” (Domestic Relations Law § 230 [3].) The threshold question before this court, raised in the defendant husband’s opposition to the plaintiff wife’s motion for pendente lite relief, is whether New York’s recently enacted no-fault divorce statute creates a “cause” that would…”
Casey v. Casey, 39 A.D.3d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 2× “There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over the action because the plaintiff allegedly failed to meet the durational residency requirements mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 230.”
Capdevilla v. Capdevilla, 149 A.D.2d 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 3× “Given this finding of fact, it was an error of law to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff did not meet the durational residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230. We agree with the Second Department that residency is not, as IAS put it, the *313 "sole…”
Bourbon v. Bourbon, 259 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 2× “*722 Moreover, the wife established compliance with the durational requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230 (2), which provides that an action for divorce may be maintained when “[t]he parties have resided in this state as husband and wife and either party is a resident…”
Wilson v. Wilson, 176 A.D.2d 115 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 5× “), dated September 25, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action in that the plaintiff could not satisfy the residency requirements set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 230 is held in…”
Zwerling v. Zwerling, 167 Misc. 2d 782 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “The court may exercise in rem jurisdiction over the marital status (CPLR 314 [1]; see, Renaudin v Renaudin, 37 AD2d 183, 185 ), provided one of the applicable provisions of the residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law § 230 is satisfied.”
Quilty v. Quilty, 169 A.D.2d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). “The issue of compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 230 residency requirements has not been raised.”
Wittich v. Wittich, 210 A.D.2d 138 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). “), entered on or about March 15, 1994, which denied defendant’s motion to change the venue of the action to Suffolk County, and an order of that same court and Justice, entered on or about March 16, 1994, which denied his motion to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non…”
Warner v. Houghton, 43 A.D.3d 376 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “And, of course, New York had subject matter jurisdiction, since the parties were married in New York and plaintiff had been residing here for one year prior to commencement of this action (see Domestic Relations Law § 230 [1]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.