Servedio v. Bratton

268 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 748
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 25, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 356 (Servedio v. Bratton) 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
Servedio v. Bratton, 268 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 23, 1998, which granted the petition to annul the determination denying petitioner’s application for a pistol license to the extent of setting the matter down for an evidentiary hearing, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the determination confirmed and the petition denied.

In making a determination on a pistol license, the licensing authority has broad discretion (Matter of St.-Oharra v Colucci, 67 AD2d 1104). Here, we find that Supreme Court erred in determining that questions of fact remain on this record as to whether the denial of the pistol license was arbitrary and capricious and in therefore granting the petition to the extent of requiring a hearing.

Respondent denied petitioner’s application based on his six arrests, three in 1977 and others in 1986, 1989 and 1990. Petitioner submitted uncontested explanations regarding the circumstances of the arrests as well as a number of character references. While respondent did not refute the veracity of petitioner’s explanations, nevertheless, its denial of petitioner’s application was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Even though four of petitioner’s six arrests ended in dismissals, the agency was entitled to consider the circumstances surrounding the arrests in determining petitioner’s suitability for a permit (see, Theurer v Safir, 254 AD2d 89, 90; Matter of Zalmanov v Bratton, 240 AD2d 173). Moreover, petitioner’s explanations that he was influenced by bad company and, as to his most recent arrest, was mistakenly believed to have taken sides against his brother-in-law in a violent family argument, are not sufficient to render the decision improper. Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Tate v. O'Neill
2020 NY Slip Op 06225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Velez v. DiBella
77 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ostrowski v. City of New York
55 A.D.3d 471 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Maloney v. Office of Court Administration
45 A.D.3d 374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Peric v. New York City Police Department
5 A.D.3d 142 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Abramowitz v. Safir
293 A.D.2d 352 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Vale v. Eidens
290 A.D.2d 612 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Nash v. Police Department
271 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 264, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/servedio-v-bratton-nyappdiv-2000.