Mendez v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendez v. Rosado

275 A.D.2d 255, 712 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8865

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 23, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 18, 2000, which denied respondent’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and granted petitioners’ application to invalidate the designating petition of respondent Rosado and petitioners’ cross motion to disaffirm the Special Referee’s report, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, respondent’s motion to confirm granted, petitioners’ application and cross motion denied and the proceeding dismissed.

[256]*256As the Special Referee found, after a lengthy hearing at which extensive testimony was taken and numerous documents received, respondent presently meets the requirements for residency under Election Law § 1-104 (22). Under the circumstances existing at this point, and contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, our decision of four years ago, Matter of Aran v Mejias (230 AD2d 675), involving the same candidate, is not controlling. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered August 18, 2000, which denied respondent’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee and granted petitioners’ application to invalidate the designating petition of respondent Rosado and petitioners’ cross motion to disaffirm the Special Referee’s report, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, respondent’s motion to confirm granted, petitioners’ application and cross motion denied and the proceeding dismissed.

[256]*256As the Special Referee found, after a lengthy hearing at which extensive testimony was taken and numerous documents received, respondent presently meets the requirements for residency under Election Law § 1-104 (22). Under the circumstances existing at this point, and contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, our decision of four years ago, Matter of Aran v Mejias (230 AD2d 675), involving the same candidate, is not controlling. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Mendez v. Rosado, 275 A.D.2d 255, 712 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 255 (Mendez v. Rosado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related