Greenwald v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenwald v. Kelly

5 A.D.3d 255, 773 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2797

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 255 (Greenwald 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

Greenwald v. Kelly, 5 A.D.3d 255, 773 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered November 20, 2002, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s revocation of petitioner’s target pistol and rifle/shotgun licenses and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The penalty of revocation does not shock our sense of fairness. Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner committed insurance fraud, failed to immediately notify the Licensing Division of his arrest therefor (see 38 RCNY 5-30 [c] [1]), and then failed to comply with the Licensing Division’s direction to provide it with a letter of explanation (see 38 RCNY 5-30 [g]). Such circumstances warrant revocation (cf. Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept., 300 AD2d 162 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 503 [2003]; Matter of Shulman v Safir, 249 AD2d 10 [1998]). No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility rejecting petitioner’s claims that he is innocent and pleaded guilty to a lesser degree of insurance fraud than charged simply to avoid the expense of a trial (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443, 444 [1987]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered November 20, 2002, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s revocation of petitioner’s target pistol and rifle/shotgun licenses and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The penalty of revocation does not shock our sense of fairness. Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner committed insurance fraud, failed to immediately notify the Licensing Division of his arrest therefor (see 38 RCNY 5-30 [c] [1]), and then failed to comply with the Licensing Division’s direction to provide it with a letter of explanation (see 38 RCNY 5-30 [g]). Such circumstances warrant revocation (cf. Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept., 300 AD2d 162 [2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 503 [2003]; Matter of Shulman v Safir, 249 AD2d 10 [1998]). No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility rejecting petitioner’s claims that he is innocent and pleaded guilty to a lesser degree of insurance fraud than charged simply to avoid the expense of a trial (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443, 444 [1987]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 255, 773 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenwald-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack