Russo v. Kerik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russo v. Kerik

304 A.D.2d 479, 757 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263

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

DecidedApril 24, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 479 (Russo v. Kerik) 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

Russo v. Kerik, 304 A.D.2d 479, 757 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated March 22, 2001, revoking petitioner’s pistol 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 [Nicholas Figueroa, J.], entered April 3, 2002), dismissed, without costs.

[480]*480Respondent’s determination revoking petitioner’s handgun licenses must be confirmed since it was supported by substantial evidence of an assault by petitioner and of his violation of 38 RCNY 5-30 (c) (1), by failing to report that he had been arrested for menacing with a firearm (see Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240 [2003]; Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept., 300 AD2d 162 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated March 22, 2001, revoking petitioner’s pistol 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 [Nicholas Figueroa, J.], entered April 3, 2002), dismissed, without costs.

[480]*480Respondent’s determination revoking petitioner’s handgun licenses must be confirmed since it was supported by substantial evidence of an assault by petitioner and of his violation of 38 RCNY 5-30 (c) (1), by failing to report that he had been arrested for menacing with a firearm (see Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240 [2003]; Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept., 300 AD2d 162 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 479, 757 N.Y.S.2d 734, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russo-v-kerik-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack