From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Distefano v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 2008
850 N.Y.S.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

In DiStefano, the Second Department did hold that "the denial of the petitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license on the ground that the petitioner failed to timely renew his prior license or voucher his handgun was arbitrary and capricious."Id. at 929.

Summary of this case from Matter of Lynah v. New York City Police Dept.

Opinion

No. 2006-10094.

January 29, 2008.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the License Division of the New York City Police Department, dated September 20, 2005, denying the petitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license, the appeal, as limited by the brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated September 15, 2006, as granted the petition, annulled the determination, and directed the License Division of the New York City Police Department to approve the petitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath, Nadia Rivera, and Cheryl Payer of counsel), for appellants.

Longo D'Apice, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jonathan Tabar and Mark A. Longo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Ritter, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Angiolillo, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellants have broad discretion in ruling on permit applications, which they may deny for any good cause ( see Penal Law § 400.00; Matter of Denora v Safir, 274 AD2d 478). Here, however, the denial of the petitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license on the ground that the petitioner failed to timely renew his prior license or voucher his handgun was arbitrary and capricious ( see contra Matter of Simmons v New York City Police Dept. License Div. , 35 AD3d 748, 749 ; Matter of Romanoff v Lange, 281 AD2d 551; Matter of County of Westchester v D'Ambrosio, 244 AD2d 334). The petitioner, who possessed a valid license without incident from 1990 until 2002, and who admittedly was not sent a renewal notice in 2002 to his correct address, which was on file ( see 38 RCNY 5-28 [c]), proffered a reasonable excuse for the failure to renew, and complied with all of the appellants' directives and requests, including providing information on his military record, his tax returns, and letters of reference.


Summaries of

Distefano v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 29, 2008
850 N.Y.S.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In DiStefano, the Second Department did hold that "the denial of the petitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license on the ground that the petitioner failed to timely renew his prior license or voucher his handgun was arbitrary and capricious."Id. at 929.

Summary of this case from Matter of Lynah v. New York City Police Dept.
Case details for

Distefano v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANTHONY DISTEFANO, Respondent, v. RAYMOND KELLY et al.,…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 29, 2008

Citations

850 N.Y.S.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
850 N.Y.S.2d 203
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 688

Citing Cases

Ohr Menachem of Great Neck, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

"There is no requirement in section 420-a that in order for the property of such a corporation to be exempted…

Matter of Lynah v. New York City Police Dept.

It was thus rational for respondent to conclude, as it did, that petitioner's failure to comply with one…