Sanchez v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. Kelly

34 A.D.3d 252, 823 N.Y.S.2d 400

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 252 (Sanchez 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

Sanchez v. Kelly, 34 A.D.3d 252, 823 N.Y.S.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered January 28, 2005, 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 handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In altering the standard form pistol permit application so as to style his application as one for a “Carry Target” license, petitioner sought a type of license that had been properly discontinued (see Matter of Murad v City of New York, 12 AD3d 193 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 708 [2005]; de Illy v Kelly, 6 AD3d 217 [2004]). Accordingly, respondent rationally declined to issue [253]*253the permit sought. Concur—Tom, J.B, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered January 28, 2005, 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 handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In altering the standard form pistol permit application so as to style his application as one for a “Carry Target” license, petitioner sought a type of license that had been properly discontinued (see Matter of Murad v City of New York, 12 AD3d 193 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 708 [2005]; de Illy v Kelly, 6 AD3d 217 [2004]). Accordingly, respondent rationally declined to issue [253]*253the permit sought. Concur—Tom, J.B, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 252, 823 N.Y.S.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack