Demchik v. Hannigan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Demchik v. Hannigan

182 A.D.2d 1133, 583 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1133 (Demchik v. Hannigan) 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

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).

Pincite

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 Petitioner appeared alone, and, at the end of the appointment, his pistol permit was revoked.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

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 Petitioner appeared alone, and, at the end of the appointment, his pistol permit was revoked.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1133, 583 N.Y.S.2d 334, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demchik-v-hannigan-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack