You are here: / / RESPONDENT CANDIDATE FOR THE NYS ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE MAINTAINED...

RESPONDENT CANDIDATE FOR THE NYS ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE MAINTAINED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK FOR FIVE YEARS; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO INVALIDATE RESPONDENT’S CANDIDACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent, a candidate for the NYS Assembly, did not establish he maintained a residence in New York for five years. Therefore the petitioners’ application to invalidate respondent’s candidacy should have been granted:

Petitioners brought this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 to declare invalid the designating petitions naming respondent. Petitioners alleged that, because respondent lived continuously in Illinois from 2009 until 2016, he failed to satisfy the New York residency requirements of article III (§ 7) of the State Constitution. Section 7 provides: “No person shall serve as a member of the legislature unless he or she . . . has been a resident of the state of New York for five years” … . …

Petitioner presented evidence that, in April 2009, respondent left Germany and briefly relocated to Albany, New York, the home of his father and aunt. He visited there for approximately four months until August 2009, at which time he moved to Chicago, Illinois. Respondent took up residence … [in] Chicago, Illinois, from which he: obtained an Illinois driver’s license; registered to vote in the State of Illinois; enrolled in a graduate school program; obtained employment; paid Illinois state and Federal income taxes using the Chicago residence address; and obtained a cell phone with a Chicago area code.

We note that respondent’s having voted in Illinois during the five year period preceding the upcoming election is inconsistent with his claim to have maintained New York as his residence throughout that five year period … . While we have held that being registered to vote in another state, standing alone, is not necessarily dispositive … , in this case, respondent’s time in Illinois … does not support his argument that he “always intended to return” to New York as required by Election Law § 1-104 (22). Matter of Patch v Bobilin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05172, First Dept 9-29-20

 

You might also like
Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed
Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s Evidence that the Physical Deficits Were the Result of a Preexisitng Degenerative Condition (Not the Accident) Required the Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defendants—Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Re: Suffering a “Serious Injury” [Insurance Law 5102 (d)] as a Result of the Accident
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXCEEDED ITS REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO MANDATING INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS FOR CERTAIN PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS.
RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
DOCTRINE OF INDEFINITENESS IMPROPERLY APPLIED TO ORAL CONTRACT; BOTH QUANTUM MERUIT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT PROPERLY PLED WHERE DEFENDANTS DENY EXISTENCE OF CONTRACT.
THE BIG APPLE MAP RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED TO FIX A DEFICIENCY IN PLEADING THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF... TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER...