Martinek v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinek v. Kerik

294 A.D.2d 221, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5313

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

DecidedMay 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 221 (Martinek v. Kerik) 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

Martinek v. Kerik, 294 A.D.2d 221, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Department’s denial of petitioner’s application for a carry pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of the application was not arbitrary and capricious. The fear felt by petitioner, a bank president, as a [222]*222result of having to travel to and from high crime areas for the purpose of inspecting buildings and between bank branches for the purpose of transporting large sums of cash is too vague to constitute “proper cause” within the meaning of Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f), absent documentation substantiating the cash carried or a showing of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety (see, Matter of Williams v Bratton, 238 AD2d 269; Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered January 24, 2001, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Department’s denial of petitioner’s application for a carry pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The denial of the application was not arbitrary and capricious. The fear felt by petitioner, a bank president, as a [222]*222result of having to travel to and from high crime areas for the purpose of inspecting buildings and between bank branches for the purpose of transporting large sums of cash is too vague to constitute “proper cause” within the meaning of Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f), absent documentation substantiating the cash carried or a showing of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety (see, Matter of Williams v Bratton, 238 AD2d 269; Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rubin, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 221, 743 N.Y.S.2d 80, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinek-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack