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
WHEN SUBSTITUTING AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAVE BEGUN, THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED TO START THE DELIBERATIONS OVER AND DISREGARD THE PRIOR DELIBERATIONS; THE OVER $14 MILLION PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEFENSE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO SAID SHE WOULD EXPECT THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD PRESENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Presumption Vehicle Was Operated with Owner’s Consent Not Overcome—Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
Show-Up Identification Procedure Unduly Suggestive
Loan Secured by Shares in a Cooperative Apartment Was Not a “Home Loan” Subject to the Pre-Foreclosure Settlement Conference Required by CPLR 3408
INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING ACTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BROKERS PROPERLY GRANTED.
THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPERLY APPLIED THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE WHEN IT AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION WHICH NARROWED PLAINTIFF’S BOAT SLIP; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE BOARD FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDOMINIUM BYLAWS, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (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 © 2026 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