Markowitz v. Gumbs

122 A.D.2d 906, 505 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59398
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 20, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 122 A.D.2d 906 (Markowitz v. Gumbs) 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
Markowitz v. Gumbs, 122 A.D.2d 906, 505 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Maurice A. Gumbs as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary election to be held on September 9, 1986, for the public office of New York State Senator from the 21st Senatorial District, the appeal is from a judgment of the [907]*907Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated August 4, 1986, which granted the application.

Judgment affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The petitioner contends that the appellant failed to comply with the 12-month residency requirement contained in the New York State Constitution (NY Const, art III, § 7). A person’s residence is based largely on his intent to remain at or return to a specific abode (see, Election Law § 1-104 [22]; Matter of Altimari v Meisser, 23 AD2d 865, revd on other grounds 16 NY2d 629). As used in the Election Law, the term "residence” is synonymous with "domicile” (see, Gassman, Election Law § 101). The question of domicile is one of fact based on a variety of circumstances (see, Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, 250; see also, Matter of Gregory v Board of Elections, 93 AD2d 894, affd 59 NY2d 668). At the hearing, there was conflicting testimony concerning the date upon which candidate Gumbs became a resident of the 21st Senatorial District. The resolution of the conflict is within the province of the hearing court as the finder of fact, and should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusion could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 AD2d 822, 823). The evidence supports the conclusion that candidate Gumbs was not a resident of the 21st Senatorial District for the requisite 12-month period. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cartwright v. Kennedy
2024 NY Slip Op 32857(U) (New York Supreme Court, Albany County, 2024)
Davis v. Clennon
2024 NY Slip Op 31561(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Matter of Weiss v. Teachout
120 A.D.3d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Chaimowitz v. Calcaterra
76 A.D.2d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Stavisky v. Koo
54 A.D.3d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Diamondstone v. Connor
32 A.D.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Fernandez v. Monegro
10 A.D.3d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Eisenberg v. Strasser
1 Misc. 3d 299 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Hosley v. Curry
207 A.D.2d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Isabella v. Hotaling
207 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D.2d 906, 505 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markowitz-v-gumbs-nyappdiv-1986.