In Unanue v. Unanue, 141 AD2d 31 (2nd Dept. 1988) the parties were married in Illinois and eventually settled in New York, living there for 10 years. in September 1986, they sold their Scarsdale, New York home in order to raise money for a financial venture. When the parties were unable to locate another house in Scarsdale to buy or rent, they rented a house in Connecticut. During this interim period, the wife continued to search for a home in Scarsdale and signed a contract for the purchase of a home there in November 1986. However, in December, 1986, the husband left the wife and their children and temporarily moved to Bogota, Columbia. Thereafter, the wife closed title to the Scarsdale home in her own name and moved into it with the children in January 1987. During the several months when the parties lived in Connecticut, their son continued to attend Scarsdale High School and their daughter was enrolled in school in Dobbs Ferry, New York. The parties also maintained their New York bank accounts, driver's licenses and voter registrations. Based on the foregoing, the Second Department concluded that there was inadequate evidence that the parties intended to abandon New York State as their permanent home and make Connecticut their new domicile. The Court noted that the move to Connecticut was a temporary one, necessitated by the parties' failure to locate a suitable home in Scarsdale. That the parties did not intend to abandon New York was manifested in their purchasing another home in Scarsdale, retaining their New York voter's registrations, driver's licenses and bank accounts and keeping the children in school in New York. In sum, the Court found that the parties' last marital domicile was New York, that the wife was a domiciliary of New York when the action was commenced and for a continuous one year period commencing the action, and that at the time of the commencement of the action, there was no other state, aside from New York, with a substantial interest in the marital status of the parties. Accordingly, the Court held that the durational residency requirement had been met.