Peric v. New York City Police Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peric v. New York City Police Department

5 A.D.3d 142, 772 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2265

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 142 (Peric v. New York City 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

Peric v. New York City Police Department, 5 A.D.3d 142, 772 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered October 30, 2003, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Department’s denial of petitioner’s application for a rifle/shotgun permit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The permit was properly denied on the basis of the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s prior arrest for assault (38 RCNY 3-03 [a]). That the charges against petitioner were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and eventually dismissed does not disqualify the circumstances surrounding the arrest from consideration (see Matter of Abramowitz v Safir, 293 AD2d 352 [2002]; Matter of Servedio v Bratton, 268 AD2d 356 [2000]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland De-Grasse, J.), entered October 30, 2003, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Department’s denial of petitioner’s application for a rifle/shotgun permit, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The permit was properly denied on the basis of the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s prior arrest for assault (38 RCNY 3-03 [a]). That the charges against petitioner were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and eventually dismissed does not disqualify the circumstances surrounding the arrest from consideration (see Matter of Abramowitz v Safir, 293 AD2d 352 [2002]; Matter of Servedio v Bratton, 268 AD2d 356 [2000]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 142, 772 N.Y.S.2d 507, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peric-v-new-york-city-police-department-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack