Zimmerman v. Mingo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zimmerman v. Mingo

171 A.D.2d 662

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 662 (Zimmerman v. Mingo) 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

Zimmerman v. Mingo, 171 A.D.2d 662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 20, 1989, which (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike his affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, and (2) denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that he had changed his New York domicile after enlisting in the United States Army. It is well settled that, "[a]n existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired, and it is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change [in] domicile to establish such a change by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Pingpank, 134 AD2d 263, 265; see, Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238; Matter of Gadway, 123 AD2d 83; see also, Laufer v Hauge, 140 AD2d 671; Matter of Clute v Chu, 106 AD2d 841). Although the record establishes that the defendant enlisted in the Army and was stationed in Kentucky prior to the commencement of the action, the "general rule in New York and elsewhere is that military service in no way affects a person’s domicile * * * in the absence of acts showing an intent to change it” (Furman v General Dynamics Corp., 377 F Supp 37, 45; see, Matter of Brown, 4 AD2d 157, 160; Small v Small, 96 Misc 2d 469, 473; Ticket v Oddo, 66 Misc 2d 386, 388; 49 NY Jur 2d, Domicile and Residence, § 30, at 29; cf., Matter of Altimari v Meisser, 22 AD2d 933, 934, mod on other grounds 15 NY2d 686; 11 Zett-Edmonds-Schwartz, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3.10 [2] [f|). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, none of the additional acts upon which he relies is sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a change of domicile occurred subsequent to his enlistment in the Army. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated October 20, 1989, which (1) granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike his affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction, and (2) denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving that he had changed his New York domicile after enlisting in the United States Army. It is well settled that, "[a]n existing domicile continues until a new one is acquired, and it is incumbent upon the party seeking to prove a change [in] domicile to establish such a change by clear and convincing evidence” (Matter of Pingpank, 134 AD2d 263, 265; see, Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238; Matter of Gadway, 123 AD2d 83; see also, Laufer v Hauge, 140 AD2d 671; Matter of Clute v Chu, 106 AD2d 841). Although the record establishes that the defendant enlisted in the Army and was stationed in Kentucky prior to the commencement of the action, the "general rule in New York and elsewhere is that military service in no way affects a person’s domicile * * * in the absence of acts showing an intent to change it” (Furman v General Dynamics Corp., 377 F Supp 37, 45; see, Matter of Brown, 4 AD2d 157, 160; Small v Small, 96 Misc 2d 469, 473; Ticket v Oddo, 66 Misc 2d 386, 388; 49 NY Jur 2d, Domicile and Residence, § 30, at 29; cf., Matter of Altimari v Meisser, 22 AD2d 933, 934, mod on other grounds 15 NY2d 686; 11 Zett-Edmonds-Schwartz, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3.10 [2] [f|). Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, none of the additional acts upon which he relies is sufficient to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a change of domicile occurred subsequent to his enlistment in the Army. Kooper, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zimmerman-v-mingo-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack