Clark v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. McCoy

196 A.D.2d 607, 601 N.Y.S.2d 190

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 607 (Clark v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. McCoy, 196 A.D.2d 607, 601 N.Y.S.2d 190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Jan A. Clark as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1993, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council from the 27th Council District, and a cross petition to invalidate the designating petition, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), dated August 12, 1993, which granted the cross application to invalidate and dismissed the application to validate.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the appellant’s application to validate based on the inexcusable dilatory tactics of the appellant’s counsel.

However, we note that the Supreme Court erred in its determination that the appellant did not meet the residency requirements of Election Law § 6-122, because the appellant was not a resident of the district to which she sought election. There is no requirement that a candidate be a resident of the district at the time of the filing of the petition. The only requirement is that the candidate be a resident at the time of the election (see, Election Law § 6-122 [3]; Public Officers Law § 3 [1]; Matter of Weidman v Starkweather, 80 NY2d 955, 956). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating Jan A. Clark as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 14, 1993, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council from the 27th Council District, and a cross petition to invalidate the designating petition, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), dated August 12, 1993, which granted the cross application to invalidate and dismissed the application to validate.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the appellant’s application to validate based on the inexcusable dilatory tactics of the appellant’s counsel.

However, we note that the Supreme Court erred in its determination that the appellant did not meet the residency requirements of Election Law § 6-122, because the appellant was not a resident of the district to which she sought election. There is no requirement that a candidate be a resident of the district at the time of the filing of the petition. The only requirement is that the candidate be a resident at the time of the election (see, Election Law § 6-122 [3]; Public Officers Law § 3 [1]; Matter of Weidman v Starkweather, 80 NY2d 955, 956). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 607, 601 N.Y.S.2d 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-mccoy-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack