You are here: / / ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK...

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK REMAINED HIS ELECTORAL RESIDENCY; THEREFORE RESPONDENT WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined New York, not Connecticut, was respondent’s (Koffman’s) electoral residency. Therefore respondent was eligible to run for the State Senate in New York. Respondent had attended college in Connecticut and registered to vote a there during college:

Petitioner submitted proof that respondent had registered to vote and had voted in Connecticut from 2015 to 2018 instead of voting by absentee ballot in New York. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, respondent presented his affidavit and documentary evidence which demonstrated, among other things, that he was born and raised in New York; that he used his New York home as his permanent address; maintained his New York driver’s license; paid New York taxes; completed New York jury service while he was a student at Yale; lived in New York when school was not in session; returned to New York to live and work after graduation, and always considered himself a New York resident. * * *

Under the circumstances here, where there was ample proof that Koffman was a New York resident and that Koffman’s presence in Connecticut as a college student was temporary, together with the fact that he was not required under Connecticut law to renounce any voter registration in another state … , petitioner fell short of meeting his burden by clear and convincing evidence that respondent does not meet the residency requirement of the NY Constitution. Matter of Quart v Kaufman. 2020 NY Slip Op 02904, First Dept 5-14-20

 

You might also like
THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS DECEASED BROTHER MADE AN INTER VIVOS GIFT OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT TO PLAINTIFF; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS APPLIES AND THERE WAS NO WRITING; AND THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE TRANSFER PROVISIONS OF THE PROPRIETARY LEASE NEGATED A FINDING OF DONATIVE INTENT (FIRST DEPT).
VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION; EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT.
THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY HAD TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF HER CLAIM AND HER ALLEGATION THAT HER INJURIES PREVENTED HER FROM MAKING A TIMELY CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR SPECIFIED DISCOVERY IN OPPOSITION TO AN “ANTI-SLAPP-LAW” MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, NEITHER THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (RPL) NOR THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW (BCL) APPLIES TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEFENDING THE ACTION; THE BY-LAWS AND THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
PENAL LAW 220.39(1) AND 220.16(1) DO NOT REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPECIFIC DRUG INVOLVED; ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SUBSTANCE IS A “NARCOTIC DRUG” IS REQUIRED; THEREFORE PENAL LAW 220.16(1) AND 21 USC 841(1)(A) ARE “STRICTLY EQUIVALENT” OFFENSES FOR PURPOSES OF A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (FIRST DEPT)
PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST 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

BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES... THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS...