Boyark v. Czajka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyark v. Czajka

248 A.D.2d 772, 669 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 772 (Boyark v. Czajka) 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

Boyark v. Czajka, 248 A.D.2d 772, 669 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

As a pistol licensing officer, respondent is vested with broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny such applications for good cause (see, Matter of Anderson v Mogavero, 116 AD2d 885; Matter of King v Ingraham, 113 AD2d 977). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, in particular the testimony adduced at the hearing conducted in this matter, we cannot say that respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner’s application for a pistol permit. In our view, the stated basis for respondent’s determination — namely, petitioner’s prior criminal record and his conduct during a hunting accident, was sufficient to establish good cause for denial of petitioner’s application. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, [773]*773including his assertion that respondent failed to “specifically and concisely” set forth the basis for his denial (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [4-a]; compare, Matter of Novick v Hillery, 183 AD2d 1007; Matter of Davis v Clyne, 56 AD2d 692), have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

As a pistol licensing officer, respondent is vested with broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny such applications for good cause (see, Matter of Anderson v Mogavero, 116 AD2d 885; Matter of King v Ingraham, 113 AD2d 977). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, in particular the testimony adduced at the hearing conducted in this matter, we cannot say that respondent abused his discretion in denying petitioner’s application for a pistol permit. In our view, the stated basis for respondent’s determination — namely, petitioner’s prior criminal record and his conduct during a hunting accident, was sufficient to establish good cause for denial of petitioner’s application. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, [773]*773including his assertion that respondent failed to “specifically and concisely” set forth the basis for his denial (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [4-a]; compare, Matter of Novick v Hillery, 183 AD2d 1007; Matter of Davis v Clyne, 56 AD2d 692), have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 772, 669 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyark-v-czajka-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack