Opinion
2014-08-8
In the Matter of Shawn A. PARKER, Petitioner, v. Hon. Douglas A. RANDALL, Monroe County Court Judge, Respondent.
James L. Riotto, II, Rochester, for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of Counsel), for Respondent.
James L. Riotto, II, Rochester, for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination denying his pistol permit application. A licensing officer, such as respondent herein, has broad discretion to grant or deny a permit under Penal Law § 400.00(1) ( see Matter of Fromson v. Nelson, 178 A.D.2d 479, 479, 577 N.Y.S.2d 417;Matter of Covell v. Aison, 153 A.D.2d 1001, 1002, 545 N.Y.S.2d 622,lv. denied74 N.Y.2d 615, 549 N.Y.S.2d 960, 549 N.E.2d 151;Matter of Anderson v. Mogavero, 116 A.D.2d 885, 885, 498 N.Y.S.2d 201). Under section 400.00(4–a), the licensing officer must “either deny the application for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing or grant the application and issue the license applied for.” If the licensing officer denies the application, “[t]he petitioner must be given the specific reasons for the denial ... and be given an opportunity to respond to the objections to [his] application” (Matter of Savitch v. Lange, 114 A.D.2d 372, 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889;see Matter of Anderson v. Mulroy, 186 A.D.2d 1045, 1045, 590 N.Y.S.2d 777;see also Matter of DiMonda v. Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 831, 631 N.Y.S.2d 968). Here, although respondent issued two written decisions denying petitioner's application—a preliminary, prehearing decision and a final, posthearing decision—he never provided a reason for the denial, despite a specific request from petitioner to do so. Thus, respondent failed to comply with the requirement set forth in section 400.00(4–a). We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to respondent to provide petitioner “with the specific reasons ... for the denial of [his] application ... and [to] afford [him] the opportunity to present evidence in response” ( Savitch, 114 A.D.2d at 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889;see Anderson, 186 A.D.2d at 1045, 590 N.Y.S.2d 777). After receipt and review of any such evidence, respondent shall make a new determination on petitioner's application ( see Savitch, 114 A.D.2d at 373, 493 N.Y.S.2d 889).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously annulled on the law without costs, the petition is granted, and the matter is remitted to respondent for further proceedings.