Savitch v. Lange

114 A.D.2d 372, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53051
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 7, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 372 (Savitch 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
Savitch v. Lange, 114 A.D.2d 372, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent, dated August 24, 1984, denying petitioner’s application for a pistol license.

Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.

The sole reason given to petitioner for the disapproval of her application for a pistol license was that the Police Commissioner of New Rochelle recommended that the application be disapproved, and that the County Court had to rely on that recommendation. This reason does not constitute a specific reason for the denial of the application (Penal Law § 400.00 [4-[373]*373a]). The petitioner must be given the specific reasons for the denial of the pistol license, and be given an opportunity to respond to the objections to her application (see, Matter of Guida v Dier, 54 AD2d 86; Matter of Bobrick v Leggett, 71 AD2d 869; Matter of Buffa v Police Dept., 47 AD2d 841). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the County Court, which shall provide petitioner with the specific reasons gleaned from the police report for the denial of her application for a pistol license and afford her the opportunity to present evidence in response. After receipt of such evidence, the County Court shall make a new determination on petitioner’s application. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Sibley v. Watches
2021 NY Slip Op 02908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Benincassa v. Walsh
2017 NY Slip Op 4113 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
PARKER, SHAWN A. v. RANDALL, HON. DOUGLAS A.
120 A.D.3d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Bando v. Sullivan
290 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
DiMonda v. Bristol
219 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Anderson v. Mulroy
186 A.D.2d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Novick v. Hillery
183 A.D.2d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Babu v. Lange
164 A.D.2d 910 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Lukovic v. Cahill
130 A.D.2d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 A.D.2d 372, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savitch-v-lange-nyappdiv-1985.