Perrone v. Bratton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrone v. Bratton

226 A.D.2d 150, 640 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451

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

DecidedApril 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 150 (Perrone v. Bratton) 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

Perrone v. Bratton, 226 A.D.2d 150, 640 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated March 25, 1994, which revoked petitioner’s pistol and target licenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.], entered March 2, 1995) is dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated the geographical and use restrictions on his business premises pistol license and target license. Such a violation is indicative of poor judgment in the handling of a weapon, which is grounds for revoking a pistol license (see, Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290). The other circumstances of this case support respondent’s determination. Accordingly, the penalty of revocation is not disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to our sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams. JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated March 25, 1994, which revoked petitioner’s pistol and target licenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.], entered March 2, 1995) is dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner violated the geographical and use restrictions on his business premises pistol license and target license. Such a violation is indicative of poor judgment in the handling of a weapon, which is grounds for revoking a pistol license (see, Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290). The other circumstances of this case support respondent’s determination. Accordingly, the penalty of revocation is not disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to our sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams. JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 150, 640 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrone-v-bratton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack