Goldberg v. Edelstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldberg v. Edelstein

100 A.D.2d 968, 475 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18115

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

DecidedApril 30, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 100 A.D.2d 968 (Goldberg v. Edelstein) 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

Goldberg v. Edelstein, 100 A.D.2d 968, 475 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated April 15, 1983, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol. 11 Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. 11 Petitioner left a fully loaded, .357 Magnum revolver on a hook in his desk well while he was absent from his office. A police officer responding to a report that the office burglar alarm was sounding, found the office door open, and subsequently found the loaded gun, which he then secured, while inspecting the premises for a possible burglar. Respondent’s determination that this manner of storing the loaded weapon was inadequate and improper was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Budde v Rubin, 89 AD2d 1016; Matter of Pelóse v County Ct, 53 AD2d 645). We have examined the other contentions raised by petitioner and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated April 15, 1983, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol. 11 Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. 11 Petitioner left a fully loaded, .357 Magnum revolver on a hook in his desk well while he was absent from his office. A police officer responding to a report that the office burglar alarm was sounding, found the office door open, and subsequently found the loaded gun, which he then secured, while inspecting the premises for a possible burglar. Respondent’s determination that this manner of storing the loaded weapon was inadequate and improper was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Budde v Rubin, 89 AD2d 1016; Matter of Pelóse v County Ct, 53 AD2d 645). We have examined the other contentions raised by petitioner and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.2d 968, 475 N.Y.S.2d 80, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-edelstein-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack