Hecht v. Bivona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hecht v. Bivona

11 A.D.3d 614, 782 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154

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

DecidedOctober 18, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 614 (Hecht v. Bivona) 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

Hecht v. Bivona, 11 A.D.3d 614, 782 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Andrew E Bivona, a Judge of the Family Court, Orange County, dated November 25, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate “proper cause” for the issuance of a “carry concealed” permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [2] [f]; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691, 693 [2002]; Matter of Milo v Kelly, 211 AD2d 488 [1995]; Matter of Bernstein v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 85 AD2d 574 [1981]; Matter of Klenosky v New York City Police Dept., 75 AD2d 793 [1980], affd 53 NY2d 685 [1981]). Accordingly, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious and therefore, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395 [2004]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Andrew E Bivona, a Judge of the Family Court, Orange County, dated November 25, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate “proper cause” for the issuance of a “carry concealed” permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [2] [f]; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691, 693 [2002]; Matter of Milo v Kelly, 211 AD2d 488 [1995]; Matter of Bernstein v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 85 AD2d 574 [1981]; Matter of Klenosky v New York City Police Dept., 75 AD2d 793 [1980], affd 53 NY2d 685 [1981]). Accordingly, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious and therefore, should not be disturbed (see Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395 [2004]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 614, 782 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hecht-v-bivona-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack