Nicholson v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicholson v. Safir

305 A.D.2d 127, 757 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4602

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

DecidedMay 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 127 (Nicholson 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

Nicholson v. Safir, 305 A.D.2d 127, 757 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 27, 2002, [128]*128which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated May 17, 2001, denying petitioner’s application for a target pistol permit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the evidence indicating that petitioner had failed to properly safeguard three rifles which were stolen and failed once again to properly secure a licensed handgun which was stolen and was used in an assault, there was a rational basis for respondent’s determination denying his application for a handgun permit. Accordingly, respondent’s determination may not be judicially disturbed (see Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384 [2000]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 27, 2002, [128]*128which denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated May 17, 2001, denying petitioner’s application for a target pistol permit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the evidence indicating that petitioner had failed to properly safeguard three rifles which were stolen and failed once again to properly secure a licensed handgun which was stolen and was used in an assault, there was a rational basis for respondent’s determination denying his application for a handgun permit. Accordingly, respondent’s determination may not be judicially disturbed (see Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384 [2000]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 127, 757 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholson-v-safir-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack