Opinion
2021-04298
07-09-2021
IN THE MATTER OF DAVID M. BLY, PETITIONER, v. HON. M. WILLIAM BOLLER, ACTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, RESPONDENT.
DIPASQUALE & CARNEY, LLP, BUFFALO (JASON R. DIPASQUALE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
DIPASQUALE & CARNEY, LLP, BUFFALO (JASON R. DIPASQUALE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to annul a determination of respondent. The determination denied the application of petitioner for a firearms license.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 506 (b) (1) seeking to annul the determination of respondent denying petitioner's application for a firearms license. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is not arbitrary and capricious. "A licensing officer has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a permit under Penal Law § 400.00 (1)" (Matter of Papineau v Martusewicz, 35 A.D.3d 1214, 1214 [4th Dept 2006]; see Matter of Bly v Boller, 164 A.D.3d 1618, 1618 [4th Dept 2018]). Here, petitioner failed to report three prior arrests on his application, and "[t]he failure of [a] petitioner to report on his [or her] application [a] prior arrest[] provide[s] a sufficient basis to deny the application" (Papineau, 35 A.D.3d at 1214; see Bly, 164 A.D.3d at 1618; Matter of DiMonda v Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 830 [4th Dept 1995]).