Alberici v. Dinkins, 41 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1973). · Go Syfert
Alberici v. Dinkins, 41 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Cited for
At page 947 Determining residency intent and physical presence for election law16 citing cases15 listed here
  • Matter of Cartwright v. Kennedy, 2024 NY Slip Op 32857(U) (N.Y. Sup. Albany 2024).unpublished
    The controlling factor to a Court's finding that a party maintains a " residence" at a particular address •' is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ' without any aura of sham"' (Peo…
  • The Matter of Steven Glickman v. Zackary Laffin, 59 N.E.3d 527 (N.Y. 2016).published
    The “crucial determination” for electoral residency purposes “is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (O’Hara, 96 NY2d at 385 , quoting Matter of Gallagher v Dinkins, 41 A…
  • Matter of Glickman v. Laffin, 142 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published 2 cites
    “The crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (People v O’Hara, 96 N…
  • Meyer v. Whitney, 132 A.D.3d 1062 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published 2 cites
    The dispositive factor in determining “whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (People v…
  • Matter of Maas v. Gaebel, 129 A.D.3d 178 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published
    “The crucial [factor in the] determination [of] whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (…
  • Matter of Weiss v. Teachout, 120 A.D.3d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014).published
    Although “[t]he crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of s…
  • Chaimowitz v. Calcaterra, 76 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    “The crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (Peo…
  • Chaimowitz v. Calcaterra, 76 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    “The crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (Peo…
  • Willkie v. Delaware Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 55 A.D.3d 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2008).published
    Election Law § 1-104 (22) defines a residence as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.” Although the plain language of t…
  • Willis v. Suffolk Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 54 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    “The crucial [factor in the] determination [of] whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ‘without any…
Show 5 more citing cases
  • Stavisky v. Koo, 54 A.D.3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    “The crucial [factor in the] determination [of] whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (…
  • Shafer v. Dorsey, 43 A.D.3d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2007).published
    Election Law § 1-104 (22) defines a residence as “that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return.” Critical to a determination that…
  • Fernandez v. Monegro, 10 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2004).published
    “The crucial determination whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence ‘without any aura of sham’ ” (Peo…
  • Eisenberg v. Strasser, 1 Misc. 3d 299 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003).published
    Whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is determined by the individual’s manifest intent, coupled with physical presence “without any aura of sham” (People v O’Hara, 96 NY2d 378, 385 [2001], quoti…
  • Stewart v. Chautauqua Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 924 N.E.2d 812 (N.Y. 2010).published
    In O’Hara , we explained: “[A]n individual having two residences may choose one to which [he or] she has ‘legitimate, significant *147 and continuing attachments as [his or] her residence for purposes of the Election Law.’ Generally, where…
At page 946 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • Matter of McArdle v. Weiss, 142 A.D.3d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).published
    The crucial factor in determining whether a particular residence complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that “the individual must manifest an intent [to reside there], coupled with physical presence, ‘without any aura of sha…
  • Stewart v. Chautauqua Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 69 A.D.3d 1298 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2010).published
    The evidence presented at the hearing in this matter demonstrated that J.K. has significant and genuine contacts with Chautauqua County such that her choice of that county as her residence for voting purposes was properly honored by the co…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Julius M. Alberici
v.
David N. Dinkins, Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, and Celeste Snoddy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 17, 1973.
Published opinion
41 A.D.2d 946
1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4455
Published

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating respondents other than those who constitute the Board of Elections as candidates in the Liberal Party Primary election to be held on June 4, 1973 for various party positions, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered May 7, 1973, which dismissed the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. Order modified, on the law and the j-uets, by adding thereto a provision that the granting of respondents’ motion, the dismissal of the petition and the direction to place respondents’ names on the ballot are limited to respondents Celeste Snoddy and Nor ah Crowley and that the petition is granted as to the following respondents, whose names the Board of Elections is directed to remove from the ballot as candidates for the positions of delegates and alternate delegates to the 11th Judicial District Convention from the 25th, 32nd, 33rd and 34th Assembly Districts: Selig J. Wynn, Celia Kudish, Dorothy Rutriek, Charlotte Rapaport, Neil Glixon, Mark Rutriek, David L. Rapaport, Myron Levinson, Marcia Levy, Louis Ammirati, Kenneth Levy, Bruce E. Whitney, Nathan Tanenbaum, Daniel Gurian, Joseph Nizza, Beatrice Gurian, Learon Pollard, Diane Nicholson, Daniel Delio, Ottilie Holman, John Marthan, David Massie, Jr., Manuel J. Fernandez, Barbara S. Coates, Martin Silber, Paul Parrino, Susan Nealy, Elyse E. Manger and Raymond Lelay. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. We hold that the court has jurisdiction of the proceeding by virtue of the verification of the petition by petitioner Alberici. The parties have stipulated that if there is jurisdiction there is an insufficient number of valid signatures to place the names of the afore-mentioned respondents other than Snoddy and Crowley on the ballot for the purpose of nominating them as candidates to the party positions of delegate and alternate delegate to the judicial convention, and we so find. Rabin, P. J., Martuscello, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.