DECISION & ORDER Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and after hearing oral arguments, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff may seek a divorce in New York due to his continued domicile in the state. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Plaintiff, Vincent Endress Cassano, commenced this divorce proceeding on January 17, 2022, with the filing of a summons and verified Complaint. The Defendant, Joanne Cassano, filed an Answer with Counterclaims on February 11, 2021. The Defendant is originally from England and the Plaintiff is originally from Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff as a teenager moved to Oregon with his family and subsequently joined the Navy. The parties were married on July 22, 1999, in Gibraltar. During the marriage, the parties acquired property in Algarve, Portugal, though they currently reside in Bahrain, where the Plaintiff is stationed. During the marriage, the parties moved due to the Plaintiff s service and their most recent American residence was in Washington state, where their teenage son still resides. DISCUSSION In New York state, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by New York Domestic Relations Law 230 which states: “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.” The Plaintiff has not resided in the state of New York since the 1990s and the Defendant has never resided in New York. Though they are unable to satisfy the residency requirements of DRL 230, the Court needs to determine whether New York state has remained the Plaintiff s domicile during his military service in order to maintain jurisdiction in this action. “When undertaking to determine an issue of domicile, evidence of the following circumstances is relevant: a place of residence in the State of alleged domicile; length of time of residence, location of schools attended by the children; leasing, buying, negotiating for or building a home; declarations, oral or written, made at the time, or in connection with, a move which shows intent that a residence shall be permanent; place of worship and club memberships; place of performance of civic duties, such as voting, jury duty, payment of personal income taxes; place of bank account; jurisdiction where an automobile is registered; and the State of issuance of a driver’s license.” See Unanue v. Unanue, 141 A.D.2d 31 (2d Dept. 1988). Domicile has been defined as the place where a person has the intention of making it one’s fixed and permanent home. Cocron v. Cocron, 84 Misc. 2d 335, 375 NYS2d 797 (NY Sup. Ct. 1975). “Once a domicile is established in New York, it is not lost merely by temporary absences from the state, provided there is a corresponding intention to retain New York as one’s domicile.” See Unanue v. Unanue, 141 A.D.2d 31, 40 (2d Dept. 1988). The Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides protections for servicemembers in civil actions. 50 U.S.C. §§3901-4043. Pursuant to the SCRA, a member of the military does not lose their domicile or legal residence in a state when they are absent from that state due to military orders. 50 U.S.C. §4025. During a brief hearing directed by the Court, the Plaintiff testified that he maintains a residence in Staten Island, New York, at his grandmother’s address. He is registered to vote in Staten Island, New York, and he votes by absentee ballot. The Plaintiff was even called for jury duty in Staten Island, New York as recently as 2018, despite not being physically present in the state. The Plaintiff testified that he intends to return to Staten Island, New York after his retirement in August 2021. Though the Defendant argued that Washington state should be the proper jurisdiction for this action, the Court finds that Plaintiff was only temporarily in the state due to his military orders and did not sever his ties to New York. CONCLUSION The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not lost his New York residency due to his military service. Though he has been physically absent from the state for many years, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, combined with the laws of New York, protect the Plaintiff s right to seek a divorce in this state due to his continued domicile in the state. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated:
