Ferramosca v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferramosca v. Frank

53 A.D.2d 643, 385 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13361

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

DecidedJune 14, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 643 (Ferramosca v. Frank) 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

Ferramosca v. Frank, 53 A.D.2d 643, 385 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to compel appellant to reinstate petitioner’s pistol license, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 24, 1975, which (1) annulled appellant’s cancellation of petitioner’s license and (2) remitted the matter to appellant with directions that a hearing be held. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted by Mr. Justice Margett. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon the. facts before us, Special Term was correct in holding that "A record should be provided which can be reviewed” (see Matter of Armere Holding Corp. v Bell, 44 AD2d 578). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, 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 inter alia to compel appellant to reinstate petitioner’s pistol license, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered September 24, 1975, which (1) annulled appellant’s cancellation of petitioner’s license and (2) remitted the matter to appellant with directions that a hearing be held. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted by Mr. Justice Margett. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon the. facts before us, Special Term was correct in holding that "A record should be provided which can be reviewed” (see Matter of Armere Holding Corp. v Bell, 44 AD2d 578). Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 643, 385 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferramosca-v-frank-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack