Porter v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. Kelly

272 A.D.2d 333, 707 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 333 (Porter 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

Porter v. Kelly, 272 A.D.2d 333, 707 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated August 30, 1999, which revoked, without a hearing, the petitioners’ pistol licenses.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent’s determination to revoke the petitioners’ pistol licenses is supported by substantial evidence, and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). The petitioners owned a loaded weapon which was left on the floor of their unattended vehicle while they were shopping. The weapon was stolen from the car and the petitioners failed to report the theft to the police until the next day. The petitioners’ poor judgment and failure to properly safeguard the pistol warrant the revocation of their pistol licenses (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [3]; Matter of Zalmanov v Bratton, 240 AD2d 173; Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated August 30, 1999, which revoked, without a hearing, the petitioners’ pistol licenses.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent’s determination to revoke the petitioners’ pistol licenses is supported by substantial evidence, and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222). The petitioners owned a loaded weapon which was left on the floor of their unattended vehicle while they were shopping. The weapon was stolen from the car and the petitioners failed to report the theft to the police until the next day. The petitioners’ poor judgment and failure to properly safeguard the pistol warrant the revocation of their pistol licenses (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [3]; Matter of Zalmanov v Bratton, 240 AD2d 173; Matter of Gordon v LaCava, 203 AD2d 290).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 333, 707 N.Y.S.2d 476, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack