Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
"The rule of comity forbids our courts from enjoining an action in a sister State `unless it is clearly shown that the suit sought to be enjoined was brought in bad faith, motivated by fraud or an intent to harass the party seeking an injunction, or if its purpose was to evade the law of the domicile of the parties'" ( Chayes v Chayes, 180 A.D.2d 566, quoting Hyman Constr. Co. v Precision Walls, 132 A.D.2d 523, 526; see also, Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d 602, 608). No such showing was made here. There is no indication that plaintiff's rights cannot be fully protected in Connecticut, that its courts will be unable to adjudicate fairly all issues relating to dissolution of the marriage and distribution of the parties' property, or that defendant's contacts with Connecticut during the marriage were so insubstantial as to render his post-separation residence there less than bona fide. We would also note that the Connecticut action was commenced first, and that a clear basis for jurisdiction in Connecticut exists under Connecticut General Statutes Annotated § 46b-44 (a), which provides that "[a] complaint for dissolution of a marriage or for legal separation may be filed at any time after either party has established residence in this state" ( cf., Vanneck v Vanneck, supra, at 608-609).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.