The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION This matrimonial action comes before the court upon pre-answer motion by, pro se defendant-wife, Therese L., for an order dismissing the complaint on several bases. Ms. L. asserts that plaintiff-husband William L. did not serve her properly. In addition, defendant contends that plaintiff does not satisfy the residency requirements necessary to bring this action in New York. Finally, defendant argues that, pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the United Kingdom, where she and her daughter reside, provides the most appropriate forum to preside over the divorce and any related proceedings. As discussed below, based upon forum non conveniens, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this action, and grants the motion to the extent of staying this action pending the prompt commencement of both a child custody proceeding and a divorce action, or one combined action, in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the court also denies as moot plaintiff’s cross motion for an order granting him time beyond the 120-day period to serve defendant if defendant has not already been properly served. According to the Verified Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1), the parties married in England on ***, 2014. They have one daughter, E.L, who was born in 2011 in London (NYSCEF Doc. No. 11). The complaint asserts that defendant and the parties’ child in common lived in New York on a continuous basis from May ***, 2014 until approximately February ***, 2019.1 The parties and their child moved to this country in connection with plaintiff’s job as a *** for ***, which is headquartered in London but has offices around the world. Plaintiff asserts that he currently resides at ***, in Manhattan. Plaintiff has acknowledged that he was out of this State and country from December ***, 2018 to June ***, 2019 as his United States work visa had been revoked because of domestic violence charges New York State was pursuing against him.2 As a result, his employer sent him to work in one of its Singapore offices until he was able to obtain a new visa and return to the United States (NYSCEF Doc. No. 10 18). Although he travels internationally because of his job, plaintiff states that he has steadily maintained a residence in New York. He asserts that he has filed tax returns in New York for several years (id.
