Legal Opinion · Dissent

Scaringe v. Ackerman

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

Decided October 9, 1986Published

1Dissent

Kane, J. P.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. In this case, the qualification as to residency is set forth in the State Constitution and, therefore, Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine if this qualification has been met (see, Matter of Spenser v Board of Educ., 39 AD2d 399, 401, affd 31 NY2d 810; see also, Matter of Reich v Webster, 105 AD2d 544, appeal dismissed 64 NY2d 1129). Accordingly, in our opinion, this is a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We are unable to accept respondents’ claim that the instant proceeding was, in reality, one challenging the validity of respondent F.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brayman v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1967
  2. MATTER OF OWENS v. SharptonNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Brayman v. StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1967
  4. Spencer v. Board of EducationAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
  5. Harwood v. MeisserNew York Court of Appeals · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API