Campbell v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campbell v. Kelly

85 A.D.3d 446, 924 N.Y.S.2d 269

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

DecidedJune 7, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 446 (Campbell v. Kelly) 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

Campbell v. Kelly, 85 A.D.3d 446, 924 N.Y.S.2d 269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 6, 2010, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Possession of a handgun license is a privilege, not a right, and as such, it is subject to the broad discretion of the Police Commissioner (see Matter of Tolliver v Kelly, 41 AD3d 156, 158 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Here, respondent’s determination was rationally based as it was premised upon petitioner’s failure to disclose seven out of eight arrests. Respondent examined the circumstances surrounding those arrests, which were for driving while intoxicated, criminal possession of a weapon, assault and armed robbery, and resulted in multiple convictions, and determined that petitioner was unfit to carry a weapon (see Tolliver at 158; Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 6, 2010, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking, inter alia, to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Possession of a handgun license is a privilege, not a right, and as such, it is subject to the broad discretion of the Police Commissioner (see Matter of Tolliver v Kelly, 41 AD3d 156, 158 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Here, respondent’s determination was rationally based as it was premised upon petitioner’s failure to disclose seven out of eight arrests. Respondent examined the circumstances surrounding those arrests, which were for driving while intoxicated, criminal possession of a weapon, assault and armed robbery, and resulted in multiple convictions, and determined that petitioner was unfit to carry a weapon (see Tolliver at 158; Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P., DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 446, 924 N.Y.S.2d 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack