Florio v. Bradley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Florio v. Bradley

186 A.D.2d 331, 587 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10802

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 331 (Florio v. Bradley) 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

Florio v. Bradley, 186 A.D.2d 331, 587 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to, inter alia, review a determination of respondent which suspended petitioner’s license to carry a pistol.

Even assuming that respondent has the statutory authority to suspend petitioner’s pistol license, an indefinite suspension, like the one here, is in effect a revocation and, therefore, is improper without affording petitioner the opportunity to be heard (see, Matter of Robinson v Bergin, 88 AD2d 789; see also, Matter of Burke v Colabella, 113 AD2d 794, 795). Accordingly, petitioner should be given the chance to rebut any allegations against him.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and petition granted.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to, inter alia, review a determination of respondent which suspended petitioner’s license to carry a pistol.

Even assuming that respondent has the statutory authority to suspend petitioner’s pistol license, an indefinite suspension, like the one here, is in effect a revocation and, therefore, is improper without affording petitioner the opportunity to be heard (see, Matter of Robinson v Bergin, 88 AD2d 789; see also, Matter of Burke v Colabella, 113 AD2d 794, 795). Accordingly, petitioner should be given the chance to rebut any allegations against him.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and petition granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 331, 587 N.Y.S.2d 958, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-bradley-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack