Henel v. D'Amico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Henel v. D'Amico

143 A.D.2d 505, 533 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.2d 505 (Henel v. D'Amico) 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

Henel v. D'Amico, 143 A.D.2d 505, 533 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks review of the determination of the Erie County Pistol Licensing Officer revoking his pistol license. The officer’s determination revoking the license because of a certain incident "demonstrating the careless and reckless use and possession of a firearm” is supported by petitioner’s own version of the incident, even without reference to the police report, and was a proper exercise of the officer’s discretion (Matter of Marlow v Buckley, 105 AD2d 1160). We further find that, also based on petitioner’s own version of events, he was given an adequate opportunity to appear with his attorney to rebut the charges (Matter of St.Oharra v Colluci, 67 AD2d 1104), and he had adequate notice of the hearing. (Article 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed with costs. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks review of the determination of the Erie County Pistol Licensing Officer revoking his pistol license. The officer’s determination revoking the license because of a certain incident "demonstrating the careless and reckless use and possession of a firearm” is supported by petitioner’s own version of the incident, even without reference to the police report, and was a proper exercise of the officer’s discretion (Matter of Marlow v Buckley, 105 AD2d 1160). We further find that, also based on petitioner’s own version of events, he was given an adequate opportunity to appear with his attorney to rebut the charges (Matter of St.Oharra v Colluci, 67 AD2d 1104), and he had adequate notice of the hearing. (Article 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.2d 505, 533 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henel-v-damico-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack