Dixie v. Mulroy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dixie v. Mulroy

216 A.D.2d 947, 629 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7304

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 947 (Dixie v. Mulroy) 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

Dixie v. Mulroy, 216 A.D.2d 947, 629 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that this proceeding was not timely commenced. Petitioner was entitled to appear with counsel and be heard on his request for reinstatement of his pistol license (see, Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290; Matter of Demchik v Hannigan, 182 AD2d 1133; Matter of Burke v Colabella, 113 AD2d 794). The determination was not "final and binding” upon petitioner until respondent denied that request (CPLR 217 [1]).

Respondent’s denial of the request for reinstatement, based upon petitioner’s failure to provide timely notification of a change of residence (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [9]), did not constitute an abuse of discretion and is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Simon v Hannigan, 214 AD2d 1031; Matter of Eddy v Kirk, 195 AD2d 1009, 1010-1011, affd 83 NY2d 919). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject respondent’s contention that this proceeding was not timely commenced. Petitioner was entitled to appear with counsel and be heard on his request for reinstatement of his pistol license (see, Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290; Matter of Demchik v Hannigan, 182 AD2d 1133; Matter of Burke v Colabella, 113 AD2d 794). The determination was not "final and binding” upon petitioner until respondent denied that request (CPLR 217 [1]).

Respondent’s denial of the request for reinstatement, based upon petitioner’s failure to provide timely notification of a change of residence (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [9]), did not constitute an abuse of discretion and is neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Simon v Hannigan, 214 AD2d 1031; Matter of Eddy v Kirk, 195 AD2d 1009, 1010-1011, affd 83 NY2d 919). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 947, 629 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixie-v-mulroy-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack