Esposito v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. Kelly

46 A.D.3d 384, 847 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 384 (Esposito v. Kelly) 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

Esposito v. Kelly, 46 A.D.3d 384, 847 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent’s License Division, dated March 31, 2006, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Walter Tolub, J.], entered October 31, 2006) dismissed, without costs.

In view of the uncontroverted evidence that petitioner was arrested for multiple counts of possession of marijuana, that marijuana was found in his car, and that he violated the conditions of his license by failing to notify the License Division of his arrest, the revocation of petitioner’s license may not be judicially disturbed (see Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240 [2003]). Petitioner’s argument that the penalty of revocation shocks the [385]*385conscience is without merit (see Matter of Robinson v Ward, 181 AD2d 585 [1992]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent’s License Division, dated March 31, 2006, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Walter Tolub, J.], entered October 31, 2006) dismissed, without costs.

In view of the uncontroverted evidence that petitioner was arrested for multiple counts of possession of marijuana, that marijuana was found in his car, and that he violated the conditions of his license by failing to notify the License Division of his arrest, the revocation of petitioner’s license may not be judicially disturbed (see Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240 [2003]). Petitioner’s argument that the penalty of revocation shocks the [385]*385conscience is without merit (see Matter of Robinson v Ward, 181 AD2d 585 [1992]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 384, 847 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack