Nash v. Police Department

271 A.D.2d 384, 708 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 27, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 384 (Nash v. Police Department) 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
Nash v. Police Department, 271 A.D.2d 384, 708 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered April 7, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Department’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a premises residence pistol permit with target endorsement, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Department’s finding of “good cause” for denying petitioner a premises/target pistol permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [former (d)] [current (f)]; 38 RCNY 5-02 [f|) was rationally based on the record of the proceeding in which petitioner’s full carry permit was revoked. That record shows that petitioner was arrested in 1992 for an incident in which he drew a loaded pistol from his ankle holster during a dispute with his son, and during which incident responding police officers found 11 additional weapons in petitioner’s home, 10 of which were loaded and three of which were assault weapons. A contrary finding is not required by petitioner’s long and commendable career with [385]*385the Fire Department, his 40-year marriage, the dismissal of the charges on which he was arrested for the 1992 incident (see, Matter of Servedio v Bratton, 268 AD2d 356), or the fact that the Department did not revoke petitioner’s rifle/shotgun permit based on the same incident. The standards for granting a rifle/shotgun permit (38 RCNY 3-03) are less stringent than those for granting a pistol permit, even the limited premises/ target permit sought by petitioner (38 RCNY 5-02), and do not include the catch-all “good cause” requirement. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Tolliver v. Kelly
41 A.D.3d 156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Ullah v. Kelly
29 A.D.3d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Rezek v. Kelly
13 A.D.3d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Wong v. Kelly
12 A.D.3d 213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Pinella v. Safir
5 A.D.3d 316 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Nicholson v. Safir
305 A.D.2d 127 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Abramowitz v. Safir
293 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 384, 708 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nash-v-police-department-nyappdiv-2000.