June 04, 2018

Distinguishing between an individual's "domicile" and his or her "residence"


Distinguishing between an individual's "domicile" and his or her "residence"
Campaniello v New York State Div. of Tax Appeals Trib., 2018 NY Slip Op 03400, Appellate Division, Third Department

From time to time an applicant for public employment or an employee is required to be "domiciled"* with the physical jurisdiction of the employer. In some instances there is some confusion between the individual's "domicile" and his or her "residence"** for the purpose of qualifying for employment with the employer with respect to the requirement that the individual be a "resident" rather than be domiciled within the physical jurisdiction of the employer.

An individual may simultaneously have a number of residences but he or she has only one domicile at a time regardless of the number of residences involved. The term “domicile” means the place where a person has his or her permanent home to which he or she intends to return if living or having a residence at a different location.

In Campaniello the Appellate Division explained that a person's domicile "is the place which an individual intends to be such individual's permanent home ... " for it is well-settled that "domicile is established by physical presence in a particular locality coupled with the intent to remain." Further, once a domicile is established, it "continues until the individual in question moves to a new location with the bona fide intention of making such individual's fixed and permanent home there."

Should an individual seek to establish a change in domicile, it was that individual's burden to prove his or her change of domicile by clear and convincing evidence.

Below are selected court decisions that considered one or more aspects of a "residence requirement" for appointment to a position in the public service or for an individual's "continuation" in his or her public employment."

Court of Appeals holds that a “residency policy” requiring municipal workers to be domiciled within the geographical boundaries of the jurisdiction serves a "legitimate purpose"
Matter of Beck-Nichols, Adrian, and Luchey v Bianco, 2013 NY Slip Op 01015, Court of Appeals 
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Employee terminated after failing to establish and maintain a domicile in the jurisdiction as required the Town’s Code
Peck v Town Bd. of Town of Amherst, 2012 NY Slip Op 02220, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode”
Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 2011 NY Slip Op 02206, Appellate Division, Fourth Department,
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Terminated employees challenge City’s requirement that employees be domiciled within its jurisdiction
Matter of Ball v City of Syracuse, 60 AD3d 1312; Motion for leave to appeal denied, 63 AD3d 1671
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Determining “continuous residency” for the purpose of qualifying for public office or employment
Glickman v Laffin, 2016 NY Slip Op 05842, Court of Appeals
The decision is posted on the Internet at:


An individual’s domicile and residence distinguished
Weiss v Teachout, 2014 NY Slip Op 05888, Appellate Division, Second Department
The decision is posted on the Internet at:


Employee found to have violated employer's domiciliary policy terminated
Adrian v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 2012 NY Slip Op 01293, Appellate Division, Fourth Department 


Having a residence in the jurisdiction not always the same as having a domicile in the jurisdiction
Matter of Johnson v Town of Amherst, 2010 NY Slip Op 05447, Decided on June 18, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05447.htm

Automatic termination from public office by operation of law
Foley v Bratton, Court of Appeals, 92 NY2d 781 [Decided with
Griffin v Bratton]
The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Elected official removed from public office for failing to be a domiciliary of the jurisdiction as required by law
Board of Trustees of the Vil. of Sodus, N.Y. v Allen, 2011 NY Slip Op 31035(U), Supreme Court, Wayne County, Docket Number: 71473/2010, Judge Dennis M. Kehoe [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

The Allen decision is posted on the Internet at:


* See, for example, §3.2 [et seq.] of the Public Officers Law with respect to excusing certain employees from complying with a residence requirement set by a political subdivision of the State.

** An individual may simultaneously have a number of residences but he or she has only one domicile at a time regardless of the number of residences involved. The term “domicile” means the place where a person has his or her permanent home to which he or she intends to return if living or having a residence at a different location. [See also an earlier decision involving this issue at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/terminated-employees-challenge-citys.html.]

The Campaniello decision is posted on the Internet at:


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.