Budde v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Budde v. Rubin

89 A.D.2d 1016, 454 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18271

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1982·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner’s pistol permits, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered December 11, 1981, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A CPLR article 78 proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice or a County Court Judge must be commenced in the Appellate Division (see CPLR 506, subd [b], par 1; Matter of B. T. Prods, v Barr, 44 NY2d 226, 234). However, we will consider the instant appeal by petitioner as if it were an original application to this court (see Matter of Snee v .County Court of County of Cayuga, 31 AD2d 303, 308; Matter of Nolan v Court of General Sessions, 15 AD2d 78, 79-80, affd 11 NY2d 114). We find that the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permits was not arbitrary or capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Matter of St.-Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to reinstate petitioner’s pistol permits, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered December 11, 1981, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. A CPLR article 78 proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice or a County Court Judge must be commenced in the Appellate Division (see CPLR 506, subd [b], par 1; Matter of B. T. Prods, v Barr, 44 NY2d 226, 234). However, we will consider the instant appeal by petitioner as if it were an original application to this court (see Matter of Snee v .County Court of County of Cayuga, 31 AD2d 303, 308; Matter of Nolan v Court of General Sessions, 15 AD2d 78, 79-80, affd 11 NY2d 114). We find that the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permits was not arbitrary or capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Matter of St.-Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Titone and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Budde v. Rubin, 89 A.D.2d 1016, 454 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

89 A.D.2d 1016 (Budde v. Rubin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related