Marino v. Hubert

3 Citing cases

  1. McCarthy v. Sini

    172 A.D.3d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    The type of pistol license sought by the petitioner is defined by Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) as a "license for a pistol or revolver ... issued to ... have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof." "A [pistol] licensing officer has broad discretion in determining whether ‘proper cause’ exists for the issuance of a ‘carry concealed’ license" ( Matter of Sarro v. Smith , 8 A.D.3d 395, 395, 777 N.Y.S.2d 710, quoting Penal Law § 400.00[2][f] ; seeMatter of Marino v. Hubert , 117 A.D.3d 829, 985 N.Y.S.2d 706 ; Matter of Bando v. Sullivan , 290 A.D.2d 691, 692, 735 N.Y.S.2d 660 ; Matter of Bernstein v. Police Dept. of City of N.Y. , 85 A.D.2d 574, 445 N.Y.S.2d 716 ). A licensing officer's determination will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary and capricious (seeMatter of O'Brien v. Keegan , 87 N.Y.2d 436, 440, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 663 N.E.2d 316 ; Matter of Kachalsky v. Cacace , 65 A.D.3d 1045, 1045, 884 N.Y.S.2d 877 ; Matter of Bando v. Sullivan , 290 A.D.2d at 692, 735 N.Y.S.2d 660 ).

  2. Benincassa v. Walsh

    150 A.D.3d 1103 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    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.

  3. Benincassa v. Walsh

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 4113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    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 AD3d 946; cf. Matter of Marino v Hubert, 117 AD3d 829, 830; Matter of Pacis v Nelson, 224 AD2d 698), 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.