Denora v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Denora v. Safir

274 A.D.2d 478, 711 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7842

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 17, 2000·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated March 31, 1998, which denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol license, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 27, 1999, which annulled the determination, granted the petition, and directed the Police Commissioner to issue a “Carry Business” handgun license to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The appellants have broad discretion in ruling on permit applications, which they may deny for any good cause (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [1]; Matter of Westfall v Lange, 175 AD2d 290). In this case, the appellants’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious and should not be disturbed (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Capuano v Mahoney, 232 AD2d 482; Matter of Westfall v Lange, supra). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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 review a determination of the Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated March 31, 1998, which denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol license, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated July 27, 1999, which annulled the determination, granted the petition, and directed the Police Commissioner to issue a “Carry Business” handgun license to the petitioner.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The appellants have broad discretion in ruling on permit applications, which they may deny for any good cause (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [1]; Matter of Westfall v Lange, 175 AD2d 290). In this case, the appellants’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious and should not be disturbed (see, CPLR 7803 [3]; Matter of Capuano v Mahoney, 232 AD2d 482; Matter of Westfall v Lange, supra). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Denora v. Safir, 274 A.D.2d 478, 711 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

274 A.D.2d 478 (Denora v. Safir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related