Jurisdiction over Non-Resident Spouses

Although there are decisions rendered after the 1976 amendments that continue to adhere to the traditional view that domicile is the sole criterion in determining compliance with Domestic Relations Law ' 230 ' some courts in response to the 1976 amendments have taken a more liberal approach and declined to equate residency as used in Domestic Relations Law ' 230 with domicile ' Usually, durational residency requirements, as here, are an attempt by the State to regulate the availability of divorces to persons who have minimal ties with the State; their enactment is justified as an exercise by the State of its prerogative of overseeing the institution of marriage (Ann., Validity of Statute Imposing Durational Residency Requirements for Divorce Applicants, 57 A.L.R.3d 221). An interpretation of the durational residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law ' 230 that would permit a class of persons who have continuously dwelled within this State for the prescribed duration access to the courts for the purpose of terminating their marital status, but deny access to a class of persons who have been continuously domiciled in New York for the requisite duration would subject Domestic Relations Law ' 230 to attack as violative of equal protection. No compelling State interest can be discerned for justifying a durational residency requirement which bars access to the courts for the purpose of terminating a marriage to a segment of the population having substantial contacts with New York, such as New York domiciliaries, who have continued such status for the applicable duration of time. Accordingly, we conclude that the durational residency requirements may be satisfied by either the traditional method of proving that a party has been domiciled or, in the alternative, has resided in New York State for the continuous period of time specified in the applicable subdivision of Domestic Relations Law ' 230.