DiMonda v. Bristol
| Decision Date | 29 September 1995 |
| Citation | 219 A.D.2d 830,631 N.Y.S.2d 968 |
| Parties | Matter of Patrizio DiMONDA, Petitioner, v. Honorable William BRISTOL, as Licensing Officer, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard Coia by Margaret Schiano, Rochester, for petitioner.
Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General (Carlos Rodriguez, of counsel), Rochester, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, FALLON, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.
We reject the contention that respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying petitioner's application for a pistol permit. A licensing officer has broad discretion whether to grant or deny a permit under Penal Law § 400.00(1) (Matter of Fromson v. Nelson, 178 A.D.2d 479, 577 N.Y.S.2d 417; Matter of Covell v. Aison, 153 A.D.2d 1001, 545 N.Y.S.2d 622, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 615, 549 N.Y.S.2d 960, 549 N.E.2d 151). The failure of petitioner to report on his application a prior arrest for driving while intoxicated provided a sufficient basis to deny the application (see, Matter of Conciatori v. Brown, 201 A.D.2d 323, 607 N.Y.S.2d 46; Matter of Willis v. Treder, 127 A.D.2d 667, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1; Matter of Anderson v. Mogavero, 116 A.D.2d 885, 498 N.Y.S.2d 201). Respondent's rejection of the explanation of petitioner that he did not understand that he had been arrested when he was given an appearance ticket, especially in view of the fact that petitioner was thereafter convicted of a lesser count, was not arbitrary and capricious and was not made "without sound basis in reason [or] * * * without regard to the facts" (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; see Matter of Marlow v. Buckley, 105 A.D.2d 1160, 482 N.Y.S.2d 183; Matter of Bernstein v. Police Dept. of City of N.Y., 85 A.D.2d 574, 445 N.Y.S.2d 716).
Petitioner did not dispute the factual basis for denial of his application but sought a hearing to explain further his misunderstanding. That request was denied by respondent. Penal Law § 400.00(4-a) requires that respondent "either deny the application for 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 given an opportunity to respond to the objections to [his] application" (Matter of Savitch v. Lange, 114 A.D.2d 372,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Bando v. Sullivan
...v Scarano, 255 A.D.2d 747, 748, appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 847, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, cert denied 528 US 1079; Matter of Di Monda v Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 831). Respondent "specifically and concisely" articulated the reasons for the restrictions (see, Penal Law § 400.00 [4-a]; Matter o......
-
In re Crane
...requires that an adequate opportunity be provided to the licensee to respond to DCJS's determination. (See DiMonda v. Bristol , 219 A.D.2d 830, 830, 631 N.Y.S.2d 968 [4th Dept. 1995] ).Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the request from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to revok......
-
Parker v. Randall
...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 de......
-
Galletta v. Crandall
...quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Papineau v. Martusewicz, 35 A.D.3d 1214, 1214, 825 N.Y.S.2d 630;Matter of DiMonda v. Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 830, 631 N.Y.S.2d 968). Here, there are several factors that militate in favor of granting petitioner's application, including the facts that......