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
TACIT MISREPRESENTATION BY STUDENT DURING ADMISSIONS PROCESS ENTITLED LAW SCHOOL TO REFUSE TO AWARD LLM DEGREE AFTER STUDENT HAD COMPLETED COURSE REQUIREMENTS.
ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
THE POLICE OFFICER WHO STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR WAS ENGAGED IN AN “EMERGENCY OPERATION” AND DID NOT ACT IN “RECKLESS DISREGARD” OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL OF LOANS FOR ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THE REFUSAL MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT PUTTING PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS.
DEFENDANT IN THIS CONDOMINIUM ACTION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE.
UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION.

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

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