Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nickerson v. Capella

Decided: May 23, 1977.

EDWARD A. NICKERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
NICHOLAS D. CAPELLA AND MICHAEL S. KEATING, CAMDEN COUNTY CLERK, RESPONDENTS



Bischoff, Morgan and King.

Per Curiam

Pursuant to leave granted, plaintiff Edward A. Nickerson appeals from an interlocutory order denying his application to have the name of defendant Nicholas D. Capella deleted from the official primary ballot and sample ballot for the primary election scheduled for June 7, 1977.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in which he alleged that defendant had filed a nominating petition with the office of the Berlin Borough Clerk asserting that he was qualified as a candidate for the office of Camden County Democratic Committeeman for the Borough of Berlin.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant, in fact, was not qualified to seek nomination to that office, since he was not a resident of the Borough of Berlin.

An order to show cause was issued upon filing of the complaint, returnable on May 16, 1977, at which time a plenary hearing was held on the issues raised by the complaint and defendant's answer. At the conclusion of the trial the judge did not decide the issue of the residency of defendant, ruling that "the residency requirement of a County Committee member is that he actually reside in the district he represents at the time of his election to office," and that plaintiff's application was premature for defendant could, prior to the election, move into the Borough of Berlin and establish a bona fide residence therein.

Plaintiff sought leave to appeal from the order entered on May 16, 1977 implementing the oral determination of the trial judge and seeking a stay thereof.

Because of the imminence of the primary election, we granted leave to appeal and, pursuant to R. 2:11-2 and with the express consent of the parties, elected to determine the appeal on the papers submitted. At the conclusion of the argument on May 17 we issued an order directing the county clerk to delete the name of defendant from the ballots. We now submit the following opinion. R. 2:11-3(a).

At our request the trial judge prepared findings of fact on the issue of residency, which read as follows:

In June 1975, the defendant moved from 18 Ellis Avenue in Berlin Borough to Apartment 128-6, Kirkwood Road (Echelon Apartments) in Voorhees Twp. At this time, he bought new furniture and the old furniture was left in the Berlin home, ownership of which defendant retained. The Berlin home was, and has continued to be, occupied by defendant's daughter and son-in-law with their two children. Defendant has renewed his lease for the Echelon apartment for a term through 1977. He lives at the Echelon apartment with his wife and step-son, a high school student.

Defendant stays at the apartment most of the time, but sleeps in the Berlin home occasionally. Part of his wardrobe is in the Berlin home. He spends a lot of time in Berlin on his committeeman's job. (He has been a Berlin Democratic Committeeman for the past 5 years). He has lunch and dinner at the Berlin home quite frequently. His mail concerning the committee job goes to the Berlin home, while other mail goes to the Echelon apartment. He is listed in the telephone directory at the Voorhees address, but is having the listing changed to his wife's name. On election day, he works in Berlin and sleeps in the Berlin home the night before election.

He acts as liaison between Berlin and the County Committee, taking back reports to Berlin and he is active in the elective process and helps select candidates in Berlin, not Voorhees. He is not politically active in Voorhees Township. He is registered to vote in Berlin and voted at the last general election in Berlin. His wife has registered in Voorhees Township.

He intends to move back to the Berlin home as soon as his daughter and son-in-law are financially able to move to their own home. There was no indication when, or if, this would ever occur. He intends to file a dual residency statement, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:4-4.1 et ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.