DIAMONDSTONE v. CONNOR

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the candidate was a resident of the 25th Senatorial District for the 12 months immediately preceding the election. The question of residence is a factual one, based on a variety of factors and circumstances ( see Matter of Fernandez v Monegro, 10 AD3d 429 [2004]; Matter of Markowitz v Gumbs, 122 AD2d 906). The trial court, which had the advantage of viewing the witnesses and listening to their testimony, was in the best position to assess credibility and reconcile conflicting testimony ( see Barnet v Cannizzaro, 3 AD2d 745, 747). The Supreme Court's determination that the candidate resided at the address listed as his residence on his designating petitions should not be disturbed ( cf Matter of Fernandez v Monegro, supra; Matter of Camardi v Sinawski, 297 AD2d 357, 358).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the remaining contentions.