Schnell v. Spano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnell v. Spano

120 A.D.2d 669, 502 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56774

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 669 (Schnell v. Spano) 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

Schnell v. Spano, 120 A.D.2d 669, 502 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, the County Clerk and a Judge of the County Court of Westchester County, which denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol license, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered September 5, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment vacated and appeal dismissed.

The notice of appeal and supporting papers are deemed to be a notice of petition and petition to review the determination of the respondents, denying the petitioner a pistol license, and upon said application, determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

The respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

A CPLR article 78 proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice or a County Court Judge must be commenced in the Appellate Division (see, Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 NY2d 788). However, we may consider the instant appeal by the petitioner as if it were an original application to this court (see, Matter of Budde v Rubin, 89 AD2d 1016). The petitioner was convicted of unlawful entry committed when he was 19 years old. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (17), unlawful entry into a building is a "serious offense”. Penal Law § 400.00 (1) provides that no firearm license shall be issued to an applicant who has been convicted of a serious offense. Moreover, the petitioner was convicted in 1982 of driving while impaired and in 1983 of driving while intoxicated. The latter conviction stemmed from an arrest occurring only several weeks prior to the submission by the petitioner of the pistol licensing application. In light of these facts, the denial of a pistol license to the petitioner was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, the County Clerk and a Judge of the County Court of Westchester County, which denied the petitioner’s application for a pistol license, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered September 5, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment vacated and appeal dismissed.

The notice of appeal and supporting papers are deemed to be a notice of petition and petition to review the determination of the respondents, denying the petitioner a pistol license, and upon said application, determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits.

The respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

A CPLR article 78 proceeding against a Supreme Court Justice or a County Court Judge must be commenced in the Appellate Division (see, Matter of Nolan v Lungen, 61 NY2d 788). However, we may consider the instant appeal by the petitioner as if it were an original application to this court (see, Matter of Budde v Rubin, 89 AD2d 1016). The petitioner was convicted of unlawful entry committed when he was 19 years old. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (17), unlawful entry into a building is a "serious offense”. Penal Law § 400.00 (1) provides that no firearm license shall be issued to an applicant who has been convicted of a serious offense. Moreover, the petitioner was convicted in 1982 of driving while impaired and in 1983 of driving while intoxicated. The latter conviction stemmed from an arrest occurring only several weeks prior to the submission by the petitioner of the pistol licensing application. In light of these facts, the denial of a pistol license to the petitioner was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 669, 502 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnell-v-spano-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack