Davis v. Clyne
| Decision Date | 17 February 1977 |
| Citation | 56 A.D.2d 692,391 N.Y.S.2d 484 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Marilyn F. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. John J. CLYNE, as Albany County Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dermot C. Reilly, Albany, for petitioner.
Robert G. Lyman, Albany County Atty., Albany, for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, JP., and MAHONEY, MAIN, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner's application for a pistol permit.
On April 7, 1975 petitioner made written application to respondent for a license to carry a pistol for purposes of hunting and target shooting. On May 19, 1976 respondent denied the application by writing in that portion of the form reserved for his signature the word 'disapproved'. There is no record.
While issuance or denial of a license to carry a pistol (Penal Law, § 400.00) is within the discretion of a licensing officer, the exercise thereof is not beyond review. Herein, in the absence of any record, the matter must be remitted with the instruction that respondent articulate the reasons for denial of petitioner's application (see Matter of Guida v. Dier, 84 Misc.2d 110, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826, affd., 54 A.D.2d 86, 387 N.Y.S.2d 720).
Decision withheld and matter remitted to the County Judge for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiMonda v. Bristol
...reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing or grant the application and issue the license applied for" (see, Davis v. Clyne, 56 A.D.2d 692, 391 N.Y.S.2d 484). That requirement is met when "[t]he petitioner [is] given the specific reasons for the denial of the pistol license, and g......
-
Davis v. Clyne
...the instruction that respondent articulate the reason for denial of petitioner's application for a pistol permit (Matter of Davis v. Clyne, 56 A.D.2d 692, 391 N.Y.S.2d 484). By letter to the Clerk of the Court, dated April 8, 1977, respondent stated, in substance, that since the petitioner ......
-
Novick v. Hillery
...Buckley, 105 A.D.2d 1160, 1161, 482 N.Y.S.2d 183) and provide a reviewable record for respondent's decision (cf., Matter of Davis v. Clyne, 56 A.D.2d 692, 391 N.Y.S.2d 484). The fact remains, however, that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to respond thereto prior to his applicatio......
- Pine v. Town of Hoosick