countries.” (Pet.’s Mem. at 8.) Petitioner cites Greschler v. Greschler, in which the New York State Court of Appeals held that a divorce decree rendered by a foreign court was valid. Greschler v. Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368, 434 N.Y.S.2d 194, 414 N.E.2d 694 (1980). However, Greschler is inappo-site, because the divorce at issue was carried out abroad, rather than in a foreign consulate within New York State. Recognition of a foreign court’s judgment with regard to a divorce that takes place in a foreign country is based on the principle of international comity. This principle of international comity does not apply to matrimonial actions that take place within the territory of the United States. Shikoh v. Murff, 257 F.2d at 309. See also Matter of Hassan, 16 I. & N. Dec. 16 (BIA 1976) (<HOLDING>); Jung v. Novaya, 47 N.Y.S.2d 48, 49
holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that new york law applies to this matter holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership