Opinion
779
April 18, 2002.
Determination of respondent Police Commissioner dated March 6, 2000, which revoked petitioner's target and business premises licenses, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78 (transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael Stallman, J.] entered December 5, 2000), dismissed, without costs.
JOHN S. CHAMBERS, for petitioner.
SCOTT SHORR, for respondent.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Marlow, JJ.
Respondent's finding that petitioner lacks the character and fitness to possess firearms is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner was the aggressor in a road-rage incident in Connecticut for which he was arrested for assault, failed without good reason to promptly report the arrest to the License Division, and filed documents with the License Division falsely stating that he was a Brooklyn resident. The dismissal of the charges on which petitioner was arrested does not disqualify the circumstances surrounding the arrest from consideration (see, Matter of Servedio v. Bratton, 268 A.D.2d 356), and no basis exists to disturb respondent's findings of credibility with respect to these circumstances (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-44), although based in part on hearsay testimony of the responding police officer (see,Matter of Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741). Nor is a contrary result required either by petitioner's background or the fact that his Connecticut firearm license was not revoked (see, Nash v. New York City Police Department, 271 A.D.2d 384). Under the circumstances here, the penalty of revocation was not excessive.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.