Maloney v. Office of Court Administration

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maloney v. Office of Court Administration

45 A.D.3d 374, 845 N.Y.S.2d 298

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 374 (Maloney v. Office of Court Administration) 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

Maloney v. Office of Court Administration, 45 A.D.3d 374, 845 N.Y.S.2d 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered July 25, 2006, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 and directed respondent to issue petitioner an Attorney Secure Pass Identification Card (Secure Pass), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Given petitioner’s criminal history included having been arrested on several occasions and charged with, inter alia, illegal possession of a martial arts weapon, illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver and evading police, it cannot be said that respondent’s decision to deny the application for a Secure Pass was arbitrary or capricious, or lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Munsiff v Office of Ct. Admin., 31 AD3d 114, 118-119 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]; see also Matter of Servedio [375]*375v Bratton, 268 AD2d 356 [2000]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered July 25, 2006, which granted the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 and directed respondent to issue petitioner an Attorney Secure Pass Identification Card (Secure Pass), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Given petitioner’s criminal history included having been arrested on several occasions and charged with, inter alia, illegal possession of a martial arts weapon, illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver and evading police, it cannot be said that respondent’s decision to deny the application for a Secure Pass was arbitrary or capricious, or lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Munsiff v Office of Ct. Admin., 31 AD3d 114, 118-119 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]; see also Matter of Servedio [375]*375v Bratton, 268 AD2d 356 [2000]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 374, 845 N.Y.S.2d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maloney-v-office-of-court-administration-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack