Sumowicz v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sumowicz v. Kelly

14 A.D.3d 407, 787 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 304

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 407 (Sumowicz 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

Sumowicz v. Kelly, 14 A.D.3d 407, 787 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J), entered September 11, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, the owner/director of a funeral home, failed to demonstrate the need for a carry pistol permit by establishing that she was in greater danger than others engaged in a similar occupation, or that in connection with her business she was required to carry large sums of cash on her person. There is no reason for us to disturb the court’s upholding of a rationally based administrative determination (Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J), entered September 11, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, the owner/director of a funeral home, failed to demonstrate the need for a carry pistol permit by establishing that she was in greater danger than others engaged in a similar occupation, or that in connection with her business she was required to carry large sums of cash on her person. There is no reason for us to disturb the court’s upholding of a rationally based administrative determination (Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199 [1998]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 407, 787 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumowicz-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack