Theurer v. Safir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Theurer v. Safir

254 A.D.2d 89, 680 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 89 (Theurer v. Safir) 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

Theurer v. Safir, 254 A.D.2d 89, 680 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 5, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner a “carry business” pistol license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of the license was rationally based upon a finding that petitioner failed to show “ ‘proper cause’ ” for carrying a concealed weapon, i.e., “ ‘a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession’ ” (Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). While petitioner offered documentary support for his employer’s cash business, he failed to show that he himself, rather than or in addition to the president of his company, who does have a carry business permit, frequently handles substantial amounts of cash. The mere fact that petitioner travels in high-crime areas to distribute petty cash to company employees and collect COD’s does not establish proper cause (supra; see, Matter of Milo v Kelly, 211 AD2d 488; Matter of Bernstein v Police Dept., 85 AD2d 574). Further, the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s arrest for possession of a handgun in his home could be viewed by a rational factfinder as casting doubt upon petitioner’s character and fitness to possess a pistol license. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 5, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner a “carry business” pistol license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Denial of the license was rationally based upon a finding that petitioner failed to show “ ‘proper cause’ ” for carrying a concealed weapon, i.e., “ ‘a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession’ ” (Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 AD2d 199, 201). While petitioner offered documentary support for his employer’s cash business, he failed to show that he himself, rather than or in addition to the president of his company, who does have a carry business permit, frequently handles substantial amounts of cash. The mere fact that petitioner travels in high-crime areas to distribute petty cash to company employees and collect COD’s does not establish proper cause (supra; see, Matter of Milo v Kelly, 211 AD2d 488; Matter of Bernstein v Police Dept., 85 AD2d 574). Further, the circumstances surrounding petitioner’s arrest for possession of a handgun in his home could be viewed by a rational factfinder as casting doubt upon petitioner’s character and fitness to possess a pistol license. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 89, 680 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theurer-v-safir-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack