Isaacson v. Heffernan

189 Misc. 16, 64 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2707
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 12, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 Misc. 16 (Isaacson v. Heffernan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Isaacson v. Heffernan, 189 Misc. 16, 64 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2707 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1946).

Opinion

McNally, J.

The petitioner seeks a final order declaring invalid the petition purporting to designate William J. Drohan as candidate of the Republican Party for Member of Assembly from the 13th Assembly District in Bronx County, New York, and filed with the Board of Elections.

The basis of the relief sought is set forth in the petition as lack of the legal period of residence in the 13th Assembly District by respondent for twelve months immediately preceding his or her election ” as required by the State Constitution (N. Y. Const., art. Ill, § 7).

The salient facts are as follows: Respondent, who is single, resided with his parents at 2995 Botanical Square, Bronx County, since 1938. On February 2, 1943, he entered the armed services of the United States, and while in the service and in June of 1945, his parents moved to Queens County. In the general election of 1944, and again in the general election of 1945 respondent cast his vote by absentee ballot and in each case gave 2995 Botanical Square as his residence. On June C, 1946, respondent signed the registration day book of the Board of Elections for the 25th Election District of the 13th Assembly District (in order to entitle him to vote in the coming primary election) giving 395 Oliver Place, Bronx County, as his residence, stating also that he resided there for six months, and that his residence in 1945 was 2995 Botanical Square.

Testimony in the proceeding revealed that the respondent was discharged from the United States Navy on January 11, [18]*181946, at San Pedro, California; that he arrived in New York on January 21, 1946, visited with his parents from January 21, 1946, to February 15, 1946, and on the last-mentioned date moved into the home of a Mrs. Davis at 395 Oliver Place, Bronx County, New York. It is conceded by counsel for the respective parties that 395 Oliver Place is in the 13th Assembly District, but that 2995 Botanical Square was formerly in the 8th Assembly District, and since the realignment of districts effective January 1, 1944, is in the new 8th Assembly District, and that the latter address, that is, 2995 Botanical Square never was and is not now in the 13th Assembly District. Petitioner claims that on the law and facts respondent has not been a resident of the 13th Assembly District prior to February 15, 1946, and thus falls short of the residence requirements set forth'in section 7 of article III of the New York State Constitution.

The term residence with reference to the Election Law is synonymous with domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile. To constitute domicile there must exist a union of residence and intention. “ Intention alone will not do it, but the two taken together do constitute a change of domicil.” (Dupuy v. Wurtz, 53 N. Y. 556, 561.) Appraised in the light of the standards of controlling authorities the record before the court shows that the deponent acquired a residence in the 13th Assembly District in the month of October, 1945, while in New York on furlough. The testimony on which this assumption is predicated is as follows:

Q. Mr. Calanese, with reference to the conversation that you testified took place in October, 1945, would you please tell us just what that conversation was in reference . to the question of Mr. Drohan’s residence?

A. When Bill came into the club, —

The Court: Just the conversation.

A. (Continued) That is what I am trying to get to, your Honor. He found out from Louis Tambolini that there had been a redistricting of the Assembly District.

The Court: I will sustain counsel’s objection and strike out what he found out from Louis Tambolini. Just confine yourself to the conversation.

Q. Tell us what was said at that time? A. Bill'Drohan told me that he had found out that his old address was not in the 13th Assembly District and that he was then going [19]*19to use some part of Ms furlough to look around for a place in the 13th Assembly District, because he didn’t want to get away from the Park Republican Club, or from the Assembly District, in which he belonged, or said he belonged, namely the 13th. He then offered me congratulations and good luck on my campaign and told me he had voted at that time and was one of the first to vote for me on a war ballot.

I met him on one or two other occasions while during the furlough and I asked him then if he had secured any place, or what he .was doing with respect to getting a place and when he was coming out of the service and he thought he would be out of the service shortly.

The Court: He said he thought he would be out of the service?

The Witness: Yes, shortly, and that he was definitely set to be in the 13th, because he had spoken to some woman, whose name I don’t recall, but I think the name Davis, he mentioned before, comes to my mind as the person he had spoken to, and that he had made arrangements with her when he was discharged from the service.

The Court: When was that conversation?

The Witness: That was two separate occasions when I had the talle with Mr. Drohan. The first one was about the first week in October, 1945, and the second conversation I think was the following week. I was at the club every night that month of October, but I remember seeing Bill Drohan one week and then again the following week.

Frank J. Bruschi, previously sworn, recalled and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Joseph:

Q. Mr. Bruschi, would you please tell us just what was the conversations were that you had with Mr. Drohan in October, 1945, at the Club rooms where reference was made to residence in the district, or anything pertaimng to district residence?

Mr. Weston: Same objection, of course.

The Court: Yes, same as made to the preceding witness. Objection overruled. Exception.

A. Bill Drohan came in, — I have a little office up there, — I had somebody inside and the door was closed,- — I heard some fuss going on outside and I go outside and for the first time I see Bill Drohan in uniform. I says, “ What [20]*20is going on? ” And he was excited and put out. I says, Come on inside, Bill.” And he come inside and he told me that he had learned for the first time, that Louis Tambolini had shown him the map where he was in the old 8th. I says, “ Yes, too bad.” Then he says to me, Well, I don’t want to leave you, Frank; I want to stay with you.” Well, I says, If you want to stay with me you must establish your residence in the district.” I says, “You are still in the Navy.” He says I will do that.” He then wanted to pay'me his dues. I said, I can’t accept your "dues, Bill; we are not taking any dues from any of our members who are in the armed forces. Now, I says, go back to your ship and when you are discharged come back, establish a residence and you will be a member of the Park Republican Club.” He said he would. That is , about all that happened.

Cross Examination by Mr. Weston:

Q. Did he tell you where he intended to live or move into the 13th District? A. I asked him did he know anybody, and he says, yes, that he had an old friend in Oliver Place.

Q. He didn’t know whether he would move in there?

A. He didn’t say that.

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

Related

Scaringe v. Ackerman
119 A.D.2d 327 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Kashman v. Board of Elections
54 Misc. 2d 543 (New York Supreme Court, 1967)
Altimari v. Meisser
45 Misc. 2d 1008 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 Misc. 16, 64 N.Y.S.2d 726, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaacson-v-heffernan-nysupct-1946.