Austin v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin v. Safir

288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10975

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 74 (Austin v. Safir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Safir, 288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s disapproval of petitioner’s pistol license application, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination disapproving petitioner’s application for a pistol license was properly left undisturbed by the article 78 court. Given petitioner’s history of cerebral vascular episodes and his present physical limitations which might impair his ability to use a firearm safely, the challenged pistol license application disapproval was entirely rational and consistent with respondent’s role in protecting the public (see, Matter of Harris v Codd, 57 AD2d 778, 779, affd 44 NY2d 978; Iacono v Police Dept, of City of N. Y., 204 AD2d 225, 226, lv denied 85 NY2d 848). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s disapproval of petitioner’s pistol license application, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination disapproving petitioner’s application for a pistol license was properly left undisturbed by the article 78 court. Given petitioner’s history of cerebral vascular episodes and his present physical limitations which might impair his ability to use a firearm safely, the challenged pistol license application disapproval was entirely rational and consistent with respondent’s role in protecting the public (see, Matter of Harris v Codd, 57 AD2d 778, 779, affd 44 NY2d 978; Iacono v Police Dept, of City of N. Y., 204 AD2d 225, 226, lv denied 85 NY2d 848). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 74, 733 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack