Ricatto v. Kelly

5 Citing cases

  1. Cuda v. Dwyer

    107 A.D.3d 1409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    Further, the record establishes that, when petitioner sought to amend his permit to remove certain restrictions, he did not inform the licensing agency that he had been arrested. It is settled that “[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” for a pistol permit ( Matter of DiMonda v. Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 830, 631 N.Y.S.2d 968). Thus, respondent properly revoked petitioner's pistol permit on that ground ( see Matter of Cohen v. Kelly, 30 A.D.3d 170, 170, 815 N.Y.S.2d 565;Ricatto v. Kelly, 303 A.D.2d 240, 240, 757 N.Y.S.2d 7). It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

  2. Esposito v. Kelly

    46 A.D.3d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

    Before: Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Williams and Buckley, JJ. In view of the uncontroverted evidence that petitioner was arrested for multiple counts of possession of marijuana, that marijuana was found in his car, and that he violated the conditions of his license by failing to notify the License Division of his arrest, the revocation of petitioner's license may not be judicially disturbed (see Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240). Petitioner's argument that the penalty of revocation shocks the conscience is without merit (see Matter of Robinson v Ward, 181 AD2d 585).

  3. Morstadt v. Kelly

    45 A.D.3d 389 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    There was substantial evidence adduced at the administrative hearing that petitioner failed to notify the License Division immediately of his arrest (in violation of 38 RCNY 5-22 [c] [1] and 5-30 [c] [1]) on charges of menacing in the third degree, and of an order of protection issued against him (in violation of 38 RCNY 5-30 [c] [5]). He also failed to submit a notarized statement as requested by the License Division (in violation of 38 RCNY 5-22 [a] [17]), and was illegally in possession of 10 rifles and a pellet rifle without a rifle/shotgun permit (in violation of New York City Administrative Code §§ 10-303 and 10-131 [b] [1]). In view of such evidence, the license revocation may not be judicially disturbed ( Matter of Cohen v Kelly, 30 AD3d 170; Ricatto v Kelly, 303 AD2d 240). We have considered the balance of petitioner's argument and find it unavailing.

  4. In the Matter of Cohen v. Kelly

    30 A.D.3d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 8 times

    Undisputed evidence adduced at the administrative hearing established that petitioner failed to immediately notify the License Division of his arrest and the orders of protection issued against him, in violation of 38 RCNY 5-22 (c) (1), (8) and 5-30 (c) (1), (5); (d), and failed to comply with the License Division's directive to surrender his firearms immediately, in violation of 38 RCNY 5-30 (g). We reject petitioner's argument that these violations "of some of the technical rules dealing with notice," of which he claims he was not aware ( but see 38 RCNY 5-33), do not show lack of the good moral character required of licensees or other good cause for revoking his license and permit (Penal Law § 400.00 [b], [g]; Ricatto v. Kelly, 303 AD2d 240 [2003]; Matter of Acosta v. Kelly, 7 AD3d 392, lv denied 3 NY3d 606).

  5. In the Matter of Acosta v. Kelly

    7 A.D.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    It appears that petitioner did not surrender certain unique and valuable firearms because he feared that they would be misplaced or damaged by the police, and instead entrusted them to a gun dealer in a "non-remunerative sale" that, apparently, would be consummated only in the event petitioner's licenses were revoked. No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Examiner's finding that this failure to surrender all firearms, the motivation for which was first explained to respondent only at the hearing, was "so egregious" as to demonstrate, without more, petitioner's lack of character and fitness to hold any kind of gun license. We also note the Hearing Examiner's findings that petitioner "sold" the firearms without first notifying and then processing the transaction with the License Division, in violation of 38 RCNY 5-26(a),(c), and also failed to inform the License Division of the order of protection issued the day after his arrest and of his change of address ( see Ricatto v. Kelly, 303 A.D.2d 240). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.