Paparella v. Paparella
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
We hold that personal jurisdiction over defendant was prop*107erly acquired pursuant to CPLR 302 (subd [b]). The necessary New York contacts to support that determination are the strong interest this State has in the outcome because of the long period during which New York had been the parties’ marital domicile, their relatively recent departure from the State and the short time plaintiff livejd without it, the contacts the parties retained in New York during their absence and the fact that they lived in three different jurisdictions for brief periods after leaving New York.…
3Cases cited2 opinions
- Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lieb v. LiebAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
4Cited by11 opinions
- Laufer v. HaugeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Unanue v. UnanueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Klette v. KletteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Ifland v. IflandNew York City Family Court · 1983
- Levy v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.