| Matter of Johnson v Town of Amherst |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05447 [74 AD3d 1896] |
| June 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of James I. Johnson, Petitioner, v Town of Amherst etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] E. Thomas Jones, Williamsville (Patrick M. Kelly of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County[Timothy J. Drury, J.], dated November 17, 2009) to annul a determination of respondents. Thedetermination terminated petitioner from his employment with respondent Town of Amherst.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and thepetition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul thedetermination terminating his employment with respondent Town of Amherst (Town) for failureto satisfy the residency requirement of the Town Code, which requires Town employees to bedomiciliaries of the Town. "[D]omicile means living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixedand permanent home" (Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, 250 [1908]). "For a change toa new domicile to be effected, there must be a union of residence in fact and an 'absolute andfixed intention' to abandon the former and make the new locality a fixed and permanent home"(Matter of Hosley v Curry, 85 NY2d 447, 451 [1995], rearg denied 85 NY2d1033 [1995]; see Newcomb, 192 NY at 250-251).
"Judicial review of an administrative determination following a hearing required by law islimited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Langler v County of Cayuga,68 AD3d 1775, 1776 [2009]; see CPLR 7803 [4]). "Substantial evidence 'meanssuch relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion orultimate fact' " (Langler, 68 AD3d at 1776, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. vState Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). The evidence presented at thehearing established that petitioner's family lived in a home in Elba, New York, that petitionerlisted the Elba address on his New York State income tax forms, that he had no intention ofmoving his family to the Town and that he established residency in the Town solely to complywith the original residency requirements of his employment. We thus conclude that thedetermination that petitioner is a [*2]domiciliary of Elba ratherthan the Town is supported by substantial evidence (see Hosley, 85 NY2d at 451; seegenerally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc., 45 NY2d at 180). Contrary to the further contention ofpetitioner, he was fully apprised of the evidence that respondents would consider in making theirdetermination, and he was given numerous opportunities to respond and to present his ownevidence (see generally Matter of Simpson v Wolansky, 38 NY2d 391, 395-396 [1975]).We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.