Robertson v. Foster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robertson v. Foster

185 A.D.2d 963, 587 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130

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

DecidedAugust 25, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 A.D.2d 963 (Robertson v. Foster) 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

Robertson v. Foster, 185 A.D.2d 963, 587 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Ernest N. Foster as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly from the 42nd Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 18, 1992, which granted the application.

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

Based upon the evidence presented, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the appellant was not domiciled within the State of New York during the previous five years as required by NY Constitution, article III, § 7. 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 invalidate a petition designating Ernest N. Foster as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 15, 1992, for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly from the 42nd Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 18, 1992, which granted the application.

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

Based upon the evidence presented, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s finding that the appellant was not domiciled within the State of New York during the previous five years as required by NY Constitution, article III, § 7. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A.D.2d 963, 587 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-foster-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack