Olivera v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olivera v. Kelly

23 A.D.3d 216, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 216 (Olivera v. Kelly) 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

Olivera v. Kelly, 23 A.D.3d 216, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered September 21, 2004, which granted the petition and annulled respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s appeal of the disapproval of his application for a handgun license, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner’s conviction of driving while impaired constitutes a rational basis for the Commissioner’s finding that he has failed to maintain the requisite good moral character for issuance of a handgun license. In view of such finding, respondent’s determination is neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of his broad discretion (see Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Robert D. Lippmann, J.), entered September 21, 2004, which granted the petition and annulled respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s appeal of the disapproval of his application for a handgun license, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding dismissed.

Petitioner’s conviction of driving while impaired constitutes a rational basis for the Commissioner’s finding that he has failed to maintain the requisite good moral character for issuance of a handgun license. In view of such finding, respondent’s determination is neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of his broad discretion (see Matter of Papaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459 [2005]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 216, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivera-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack