From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Clark v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1993
196 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

August 18, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.).


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

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the appellant's application to validate based on the inexcusable dilatory tactics of the appellant's counsel.

However, we note that the Supreme Court erred in its determination that the appellant did not meet the residency requirements of Election Law § 6-122, because the appellant was not a resident of the district to which she sought election. There is no requirement that a candidate be a resident of the district at the time of the filing of the petition. The only requirement is that the candidate be a resident at the time of the election (see, Election Law § 6-122; Public Officers Law § 3; Matter of Weidman v Starkweather, 80 N.Y.2d 955, 956). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Clark v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 18, 1993
196 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Clark v. McCoy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JAN A. CLARK, Appellant, v. HENRY McCOY, JR., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 18, 1993

Citations

196 A.D.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
601 N.Y.S.2d 190

Citing Cases

Sellers v. Lapietra

Keith v King ( 220 AD2d 471 [2d Dept 1995]), also cited by petitioners, involved a proceeding seeking to…

Salem v. Petsas

There is no requirement that the candidate be a resident at the time of nomination, nor any requirement that…