Ullah v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ullah v. Kelly

29 A.D.3d 432, 815 N.Y.S.2d 83

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

DecidedMay 18, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 432 (Ullah 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

Ullah v. Kelly, 29 A.D.3d 432, 815 N.Y.S.2d 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 20, 2005, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 26, 2004, denying petitioner’s application for a premises residence firearm license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the uncontested evidence that, after allowing his firearms license to lapse in 1996, petitioner illegally possessed firearms in his home for some seven years, it cannot be said that respondent Commissioner’s determination that petitioner lacked the good judgment, character and fitness to qualify for a premises residence firearms license was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of the Commissioner’s broad discretion (see Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, 105 [2005]; Matter of Acosta v Kelly, 7 AD3d 392, 392-393 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d [433]*433606 [2004]). While we recognize petitioner’s admirable military service and employment history, they are insufficient to demonstrate that the denial of his application for a new license was not rationally based (see Matter of Wong v Kelly, 12 AD3d 213 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 708 [2005]; Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384, 384-385 [2000]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 20, 2005, which denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination, dated April 26, 2004, denying petitioner’s application for a premises residence firearm license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the uncontested evidence that, after allowing his firearms license to lapse in 1996, petitioner illegally possessed firearms in his home for some seven years, it cannot be said that respondent Commissioner’s determination that petitioner lacked the good judgment, character and fitness to qualify for a premises residence firearms license was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of the Commissioner’s broad discretion (see Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, 105 [2005]; Matter of Acosta v Kelly, 7 AD3d 392, 392-393 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d [433]*433606 [2004]). While we recognize petitioner’s admirable military service and employment history, they are insufficient to demonstrate that the denial of his application for a new license was not rationally based (see Matter of Wong v Kelly, 12 AD3d 213 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 708 [2005]; Matter of Nash v Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 384, 384-385 [2000]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 432, 815 N.Y.S.2d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ullah-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack