Caruso v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Caruso v. Ward

160 A.D.2d 540

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

DecidedApril 19, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 160 A.D.2d 540 (Caruso v. Ward) 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

Caruso v. Ward, 160 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered March 27, 1989, which dismissed petitioners’ CPLR article 78 petition challenging respondents’ policy of limiting the number of firearms a retired officer may list on a carry license to two, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants have failed to show that the challenged policy is either arbitrary or capricious. The fact that, in the past, there was no limit on the number of guns which retired officers were permitted to carry does not bar respondents from now changing that policy. Issuance of a handgun license is not a right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation (Matter of Parker v Nastasi, 97 AD2d 547 [2d Dept 1983], ajfd 62 NY2d 714 [1984]). The new policy, intended to control the number and identity of handguns which are carried on the streets of New York City, is a rational means of achieving this legitimate end. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ. [See, 143 Misc 2d 5.]

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered March 27, 1989, which dismissed petitioners’ CPLR article 78 petition challenging respondents’ policy of limiting the number of firearms a retired officer may list on a carry license to two, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellants have failed to show that the challenged policy is either arbitrary or capricious. The fact that, in the past, there was no limit on the number of guns which retired officers were permitted to carry does not bar respondents from now changing that policy. Issuance of a handgun license is not a right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation (Matter of Parker v Nastasi, 97 AD2d 547 [2d Dept 1983], ajfd 62 NY2d 714 [1984]). The new policy, intended to control the number and identity of handguns which are carried on the streets of New York City, is a rational means of achieving this legitimate end. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ. [See, 143 Misc 2d 5.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruso-v-ward-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack