Tucker v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucker v. Kelly

12 A.D.3d 194, 784 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13158

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 194 (Tucker 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

Tucker v. Kelly, 12 A.D.3d 194, 784 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent, dated August 29, 2002, which, to the extent challenged, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Richard E Braun, J.], entered June 24, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

There is no basis for overturning the revocation since it was supported by substantial evidence, including petitioner’s violation of the regulatory obligation to inform the License Division that he was the subject and recipient of an order of protection, and that the police had frequent notice of his heightened marital discord (Rules of City of NY Police Department [38 RCNY] § 5-30 [a], [c] [5]; [d]). Furthermore, the penalty is not excessive. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent, dated August 29, 2002, which, to the extent challenged, revoked petitioner’s license to carry a pistol, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Richard E Braun, J.], entered June 24, 2003) dismissed, without costs.

There is no basis for overturning the revocation since it was supported by substantial evidence, including petitioner’s violation of the regulatory obligation to inform the License Division that he was the subject and recipient of an order of protection, and that the police had frequent notice of his heightened marital discord (Rules of City of NY Police Department [38 RCNY] § 5-30 [a], [c] [5]; [d]). Furthermore, the penalty is not excessive. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 194, 784 N.Y.S.2d 108, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2004.