You are here: / / Provision Requiring Nonincumbents to Reside in District Does Not Violate...

Provision Requiring Nonincumbents to Reside in District Does Not Violate Equal Protection

The Second Department determined that a charter provision requiring nonincumbents (here, Shapiro) to reside in the legislative district at the time of their nomination for the county legislature does not violate the equal protection clause:

Shapiro contends that the residency requirement for nominees as set forth in the Charter is unconstitutional and, thus, he should not have been disqualified. In particular, Shapiro challenges § 112(3) of the Charter, which grants incumbents one year to move into a newly drawn district following a “readjustment or alteration of the county legislative district.” Shapiro argues that the Charter, in requiring nonincumbents to reside in the legislative district at the time of their nomination, does not afford nonincumbents the same opportunity. “Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality . . . [and] parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute’s invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt'”… . Based on the record before us, Shapiro failed to meet his initial burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the Charter’s residency provisions violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution (US Const, 14th Amend, § 1) or the New York Constitution (NY Const, art I, § 11). Matter of Becker v Shapiro, 2013 NY Slip Op 06679, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

You might also like
WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN MARKED OFF AS “INACTIVE,” THERE IS NO NOTE OF ISSUE, THERE HAS BEEN NO 90-DAY DEMAND AND THERE IS NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, RESTORATION TO THE CALENDAR AT ANY TIME IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement
VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (SECOND DEPT). ​
A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ONLY THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAS THAT POWER.
IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, RANDALL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE; NOT SO IF COCUZZO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; THE “EMPLOYER VS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE TRIER OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ALLEGED INTENTIONAL ACT OF THROWING A HAND TRUCK AT A BUS INJURING PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSES OF ACTION, BUT DID SUPPORT AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR “A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL CONTACT” WERE NOT MET; DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Board of County Legislators is Necessary Party Re: Legality of Local Law Substitution of Candidate Invalid