Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chaimowitz v. Calcaterra
Citations: 76 A.D.2d 685; 909 N.Y.S.2d 76
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; August 26, 2010; New York; State Appellate Court
A motion was filed by the appellant seeking leave to reargue a decision made by the Court on August 18, 2010, which addressed an appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 9, 2010. The Court granted the branch of the motion for leave to reargue but denied the remainder of the motion. Consequently, the prior decision and order from August 18, 2010, was recalled and vacated. The case involved a proceeding under Election Law § 16-102 to invalidate petitions that designated Regina M. Calcaterra as a candidate for the State Senate in a primary election scheduled for September 14, 2010. The petitioners sought to declare her ineligible for nominations from the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party and to remove her name from the certified ballot. The Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had granted the petitioners' request to declare Calcaterra ineligible and directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections to strike her name from the ballot. The Court found that the Supreme Court had correctly determined that Calcaterra was properly served with notice. The petitioners provided clear and convincing evidence that she did not satisfy the constitutional and statutory residency requirements. In determining residence, the Court noted that it is synonymous with domicile as per Election Law. The critical aspect is the individual's intent to reside at a location combined with physical presence, free from any pretense. The evidence presented during the hearing supported the Supreme Court's conclusion that Calcaterra did not meet the necessary residency requirements. Thus, the final order was affirmed without costs or disbursements.