Opinion
05-24-2017
In the Matter of Philip BENINCASSA, petitioner, v. Thomas E. WALSH II, etc., respondent.
The Lorenc Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert C. Lorenc of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Siudzinski of counsel), for respondent.
The Lorenc Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert C. Lorenc of counsel), for petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Siudzinski of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated June 15, 2016, which, without a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a pistol license dated March 8, 2016.
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination is annulled and the matter is remitted to the respondent for a new determination on the petitioner's application for a pistol license dated March 8, 2016, in accordance herewith, the petition is otherwise denied, and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed.
"The petitioner must be given the specific reasons for the denial of [a] pistol license, and be given an opportunity to respond to the objections to [the] application" (Matter of Savitch v. Lange, 114 A.D.2d 372, 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889 ; see Matter of Deyo v. County
Ct. Judge, 215 A.D.2d 758, 627 N.Y.S.2d 962 ). Here, in denying the petitioner's application for a pistol license dated March 8, 2016, the respondent failed to give him a specific reason for the denial in writing as required by Penal Law § 400.00(4–a). The determination, therefore, must be annulled (see Matter of Parker v. Randall, 120 A.D.3d 946, 990 N.Y.S.2d 402 ; cf. Matter of Marino v. Hubert, 117 A.D.3d 829, 830, 985 N.Y.S.2d 706 ; Matter of Pacis v. Nelson, 224 A.D.2d 698, 639 N.Y.S.2d 717 ), and the matter remitted to the respondent to provide the petitioner with the specific reasons for the denial of the pistol license and afford the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence in response, and thereafter, for a new determination on the petitioner's application.
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, LaSALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.