Miranda v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miranda v. Safir

270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 103 (Miranda v. Safir) 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

Miranda v. Safir, 270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered January 7, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLÉ article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying him a pistol license, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged determination, denying petitioner’s application for a pistol license, was rationally based (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [a], [d]) and, accordingly, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199). Petitioner’s claim that respondent’s failure to consider certain material deprived him of due process is without merit since the record discloses that the subject material was, in fact, reviewed and considered during petitioner’s administrative appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered January 7, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLÉ article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying him a pistol license, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged determination, denying petitioner’s application for a pistol license, was rationally based (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [a], [d]) and, accordingly, may not be judicially disturbed (see, Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199). Petitioner’s claim that respondent’s failure to consider certain material deprived him of due process is without merit since the record discloses that the subject material was, in fact, reviewed and considered during petitioner’s administrative appeal. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-safir-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack