Pinella v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinella v. Safir

5 A.D.3d 316, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 316 (Pinella 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

Pinella v. Safir, 5 A.D.3d 316, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a premises pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner lacks the character and fitness required for the handgun permit he seeks was not arbitrary and capricious in light of petitioner’s admission that he had purchased heroin to facilitate sexual relations with two women, and the false and misleading statements made by him in his permit application. We note that petitioner’s heroin purchase, although somewhat remote in time from his permit application, occurred when he was in his later forties, and thus may not be attributed to passing immaturity. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the circumstance that he had previously been issued a rifle and shotgun license did not deprive respondent of discretion to deny him a pistol license (see Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for a premises pistol license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s finding that petitioner lacks the character and fitness required for the handgun permit he seeks was not arbitrary and capricious in light of petitioner’s admission that he had purchased heroin to facilitate sexual relations with two women, and the false and misleading statements made by him in his permit application. We note that petitioner’s heroin purchase, although somewhat remote in time from his permit application, occurred when he was in his later forties, and thus may not be attributed to passing immaturity. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the circumstance that he had previously been issued a rifle and shotgun license did not deprive respondent of discretion to deny him a pistol license (see Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 316, 773 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinella-v-safir-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack