Opinion
March 7, 1996
Appeal from the County Court of Warren County (Austin, J.).
On this appeal, defendant seeks to dismiss the indictment by challenging the residency of the Assistant District Attorney who presented his case to the Grand Jury. While County Court noted that it was undisputed that the Assistant District Attorney was a resident of Warren County at the time of its decision and order, there was some question as to whether he was a resident of the county at the time he presented the matter to the Grand Jury. Even presuming that the Assistant District Attorney was not a resident at the time of presentment, County Court properly found that "such non-residency, while not condoned by this court, did not result in a per se impairment of the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings, thereby causing risk of prejudice" ( see, CPL 210.35; People v Munoz, 153 A.D.2d 281, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 880). Referencing People v. Carter ( 77 N.Y.2d 95, 110, cert denied 499 U.S. 967) and distinguishing People v. Di Falco ( 44 N.Y.2d 482), County Court's adherence to the principles of People v. Dunbar ( 53 N.Y.2d 868) and People v. Munoz ( supra) warrants our affirmance of its judgment.
Mindful that there is no statutory prohibition preventing a public officer from having two residences ( see, Matter of Gallagher v Dinkins, 41 A.D.2d 946) and that a change of residence, even for a short time, when combined with a good-faith intention to change domicile will have the effect of creating two residences ( see, Matter of Hosley v Curry, 85 N.Y.2d 447; Matter of Newcomb, 192 N.Y. 238, 250-251), we find no basis to disturb County Court's determination.
Cardona, P.J., White and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.