Kachalsky v. Cacace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kachalsky v. Cacace

65 A.D.3d 1045, 884 N.Y.S.2d 877

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 1045 (Kachalsky v. Cacace) 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

Kachalsky v. Cacace, 65 A.D.3d 1045, 884 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Susan Cacace, a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, entered October 8, 2008, which 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 “full carry” permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [2] [f]; Matter of Hecht v Bivona, 11 AD3d 614 [2004]; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395 [2004]; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691 [2002]). Accordingly, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious and should not be disturbed (see Matter of O’Brien v Keegan, 87 NY2d 436, 439 [1996]; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d at 395). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Covello and Dickerson, 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 Susan Cacace, a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, entered October 8, 2008, which 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 “full carry” permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [2] [f]; Matter of Hecht v Bivona, 11 AD3d 614 [2004]; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395 [2004]; Matter of Bando v Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691 [2002]). Accordingly, the respondent’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious and should not be disturbed (see Matter of O’Brien v Keegan, 87 NY2d 436, 439 [1996]; Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d at 395). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 1045, 884 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kachalsky-v-cacace-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack