Saccoccio v. Lange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saccoccio v. Lange

194 A.D.2d 794, 599 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6669

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

DecidedJune 28, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 794 (Saccoccio v. Lange) 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

Saccoccio v. Lange, 194 A.D.2d 794, 599 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, dated October 3, 1992, which granted the application of the County Attorney for revocation of the petitioner’s pistol permit.

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

The dismissal of criminal charges against the petitioner cannot bar a subsequent proceeding by the County Attorney to revoke the petitioner’s pistol permit based on the same incident. The District Attorney’s office and the County of Westchester are separate entities which do not stand in sufficient relationship with each other to warrant the invocation [795]*795of the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, e.g., Brown v City of New York, 60 NY2d 897, 898-899; Nelson v Dufficy, 104 AD2d 234; Doe v City of Mount Vernon, 156 AD2d 329). Moreover, we cannot say on this record that the respondent Judge’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the determination will not be disturbed. Mengano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, 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 Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, dated October 3, 1992, which granted the application of the County Attorney for revocation of the petitioner’s pistol permit.

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

The dismissal of criminal charges against the petitioner cannot bar a subsequent proceeding by the County Attorney to revoke the petitioner’s pistol permit based on the same incident. The District Attorney’s office and the County of Westchester are separate entities which do not stand in sufficient relationship with each other to warrant the invocation [795]*795of the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, e.g., Brown v City of New York, 60 NY2d 897, 898-899; Nelson v Dufficy, 104 AD2d 234; Doe v City of Mount Vernon, 156 AD2d 329). Moreover, we cannot say on this record that the respondent Judge’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the determination will not be disturbed. Mengano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 794, 599 N.Y.S.2d 306, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saccoccio-v-lange-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack