Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the appellant's application to validate based on the inexcusable dilatory tactics of the appellant's counsel.
However, we note that the Supreme Court erred in its determination that the appellant did not meet the residency requirements of Election Law § 6-122, because the appellant was not a resident of the district to which she sought election. There is no requirement that a candidate be a resident of the district at the time of the filing of the petition. The only requirement is that the candidate be a resident at the time of the election (see, Election Law § 6-122; Public Officers Law § 3; Matter of Weidman v Starkweather, 80 N.Y.2d 955, 956). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.