Ferrara v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferrara v. Safir

282 A.D.2d 383, 723 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4136

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

DecidedApril 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 383 (Ferrara v. Safir) 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

Ferrara v. Safir, 282 A.D.2d 383, 723 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered March 8, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s determination denying petitioner a carry business handgun license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied on the ground that petitioner failed to show that his position as the chief executive officer of a bodyguard business for movie stars places him in extraordinary personal danger, or other special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community (38 RCNY 5-03 [b]; see, Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). To the extent petitioner argues that his personal performance of bodyguard services places him in danger, respondent properly rejected the argument on the ground that petitioner lacks the license required by General Business Law § 70 (2) to perform such services. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered March 8, 2000, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s determination denying petitioner a carry business handgun license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The application was properly denied on the ground that petitioner failed to show that his position as the chief executive officer of a bodyguard business for movie stars places him in extraordinary personal danger, or other special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community (38 RCNY 5-03 [b]; see, Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). To the extent petitioner argues that his personal performance of bodyguard services places him in danger, respondent properly rejected the argument on the ground that petitioner lacks the license required by General Business Law § 70 (2) to perform such services. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 383, 723 N.Y.S.2d 655, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferrara-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack