You are here: / / Criteria for Domicile Explained

Criteria for Domicile Explained

In upholding Surrogate Court’s determination decedent’s domicile was New York, the First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

The Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act defines domicile as “[a] fixed, permanent and principal home to which a person wherever temporarily located always intends to return” (SCPA 103[15]). “The determination of an individual’s domicile is ordinarily based on conduct manifesting an intent to establish a permanent home with permanent associations in a given location”…. A person’s domicile is generally a mixed question of fact and law, which the court must determine after reviewing the pertinent evidence…. No single factor is dispositive…, and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be considered…. A party alleging a change of domicile has the burden of proving that change by clear and convincing evidence … .  Matter of Ranftle, 2013 NY Slip Op 05006, 1st Dept 7-2-13

 

You might also like
CUSTODY AWARD REVERSED, FACTORS ERRONEOUSLY RELIED UPON BY FAMILY COURT EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. 
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF THE AREA WERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DEMONSTRATED (1) THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE IT TO MAINTAIN A DRAIN WHICH PERIODICALLY BECAME CLOGGED CAUSING GARBAGE TO FLOAT TO THE SIDEWALK, AND (2) IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE GARBAGE ON THE SIDEWALK WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE MISCALCULATED AND FILED A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION TEN DAYS BEFORE THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK RAN OUT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure
Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant Unsafe Access to Roof Supported Summary Judgment