Opinion
July 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.).
Ordered that the order dated March 1, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 12, 1989, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Upon our review of the record, we find that the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma had personal jurisdiction over the defendant husband who personally appeared in the action for divorce and ancillary relief. Accordingly, the judgment of divorce rendered by that court is entitled to full faith and credit in New York (see, US Const, art IV, § 1; Williams v North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 236-237). Inasmuch as the Oklahoma court had in personam jurisdiction over the parties, it also had equity jurisdiction with respect to the realty owned by the appellant outside of Oklahoma (see, Ralske v. Ralske, 85 A.D.2d 598, 599; Miller v Miller, 109 Misc.2d 982, 983). We find that the defendant husband's collateral challenges to the judgment of divorce are without merit. Thus, the Supreme Court properly directed the appellant to comply with the terms of the divorce judgment. Accordingly, the order dated March 1, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
We find that the husband's motion, characterized as one for renewal, was not based upon new facts unavailable at the time he submitted his original opposition to the wife's application for enforcement of the judgment of divorce, and is therefore actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v. Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 A.D.2d 639; Matter of Kadish v. Colombo, 121 A.D.2d 722; see also, Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). Consequently, his appeal from the order dated April 12, 1989, is dismissed. Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.