The durational residency requirement of Domestic Relations Law § 230 is satisfied herein by evidence that, for two years prior to commencement of the action, the parties regularly returned, as part of their international life style, to reside in the New York County home where they raised their two children, and that there was no other place to which they returned so frequently or with such regularity (see, Wittich v. Wittich, 210 A.D.2d 138; Davis v. Davis, 144 A.D.2d 621, 622). As for defendant's forum non conveniens motion, its denial was proper given the nexus of this action with New York County (cf., Neuter, Ltd. v. Citibank, 239 A.D.2d 213).
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.