Demchik v. Hannigan

182 A.D.2d 1133, 583 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 24, 1992·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner was notified that his pistol permit was being reviewed and that an appointment was being made for him to meet with the pistol licensing officer. Petitioner appeared alone, and, at the end of the appointment, his pistol permit was revoked. The notification to petitioner was insufficient to inform him that his permit might be revoked, and he was not given the opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense. In these circumstances, petitioner was denied due process (see, Matter of St.-Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104). However, the Niagara County Pistol Permit Office may, if so advised, commence a new proceeding. (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Article 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Boehm and Davis, JJ.

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

Demchik v. Hannigan, 182 A.D.2d 1133, 583 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

182 A.D.2d 1133 (Demchik v. Hannigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CURTS, CHRISTIAN v. RANDALL, HON. DOUGLAS A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Curts v. Randall
110 A.D.3d 1452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Maye v. Dwyer
295 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Dixie v. Mulroy
216 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)