Hauck v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hauck v. Safir

282 A.D.2d 403, 725 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077

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

DecidedApril 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 403 (Hauck 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

Hauck v. Safir, 282 A.D.2d 403, 725 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s rifle/ shotgun permit and target pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that petitioner, a licensed plumber, made harassing phone calls to an elderly woman in which he threatened her property, and made her fear for her safety if she did not pay a disputed bill issued by petitioner, supports respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s gun permits. In light of such evidence, we find no abuse of discretion by respondent (Matter of Fondacaro v Kelly, 234 AD2d 173, 177, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which denied and dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s rifle/ shotgun permit and target pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial testimonial and documentary evidence that petitioner, a licensed plumber, made harassing phone calls to an elderly woman in which he threatened her property, and made her fear for her safety if she did not pay a disputed bill issued by petitioner, supports respondent’s revocation of petitioner’s gun permits. In light of such evidence, we find no abuse of discretion by respondent (Matter of Fondacaro v Kelly, 234 AD2d 173, 177, lv denied 89 NY2d 812). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 403, 725 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauck-v-safir-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack