Madden v. Marlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Madden v. Marlow

214 A.D.2d 735, 625 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4473

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

DecidedApril 24, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 735 (Madden v. Marlow) 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

Madden v. Marlow, 214 A.D.2d 735, 625 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, George D. Marlow, dated September 9, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

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

The petitioner admitted at the hearing that he had been arrested four times between 1979 and the end of 1984 for offenses such as assault and disorderly conduct. We, therefore, conclude that the respondent had good cause to deny the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit (see, Matter of Fromson v Nelson, 178 AD2d 479). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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, George D. Marlow, dated September 9, 1994, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

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

The petitioner admitted at the hearing that he had been arrested four times between 1979 and the end of 1984 for offenses such as assault and disorderly conduct. We, therefore, conclude that the respondent had good cause to deny the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit (see, Matter of Fromson v Nelson, 178 AD2d 479). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 735, 625 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madden-v-marlow-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack