Johnson v. Simpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Simpson

43 A.D.3d 478, 840 N.Y.S.2d 543

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 478 (Johnson v. Simpson) 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

Johnson v. Simpson, 43 A.D.3d 478, 840 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Shawndya L. Simpson as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 18, 2007 for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Surrogate, County of Kings, the petitioner appeals from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 17, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that the petition designating Shawndya L. Simpson as a candidate in the primary election to be held on September 18, 2007 for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Surrogate, County of Kings, should be invalidated on the ground that Simpson does not reside in that county (see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [b]; Public Officers Law § 3 [1]). In particular, the petitioner contends that Simpson resides in the state of New Jersey, and not in Bangs County.

The petitioner did not sustain her evidentiary burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Simpson is not a resident of Kings County (see Matter of Hosley v Curry, 85 NY2d 447 [1995]; Matter of Rosenthal v Kelly, 275 AD2d 429 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Thompson v Karben, 295 AD2d 438 [2002]; Matter of Rosenthal v Kelly, supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Shawndya L. Simpson as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 18, 2007 for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Surrogate, County of Kings, the petitioner appeals from so much of a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated August 17, 2007, as, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner contends that the petition designating Shawndya L. Simpson as a candidate in the primary election to be held on September 18, 2007 for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Surrogate, County of Kings, should be invalidated on the ground that Simpson does not reside in that county (see NY Const, art VI, § 12 [b]; Public Officers Law § 3 [1]). In particular, the petitioner contends that Simpson resides in the state of New Jersey, and not in Bangs County.

The petitioner did not sustain her evidentiary burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Simpson is not a resident of Kings County (see Matter of Hosley v Curry, 85 NY2d 447 [1995]; Matter of Rosenthal v Kelly, 275 AD2d 429 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Thompson v Karben, 295 AD2d 438 [2002]; Matter of Rosenthal v Kelly, supra).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Ritter, Dillon and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 478, 840 N.Y.S.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-simpson-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack