Posted on October 29, 2010 by Kevin Sheerin

Application for Pistol License Denied Due to Criminal History

Application for Pistol License Denied Due to Criminal History

In the Matter of Ralph Velez, Jr. v Robert M DiBella

Pursuant to Article 78, petitioner appealed a determination by the respondent denying his application for a pistol license.

According to Penal Law § 400.00(1), to be eligible for a pistol license, the applicant must be at least 21 years of age, have good moral character with no prior felony convictions or any other serious offense and there must be no good cause for denial of the license. Also, the pistol licensing officer may use his broad discretion and deny any applicant for any good cause.

Due to the petitioner’s criminal history, which consisted of six arrests and a conviction for disorderly conduct, the respondent determined that good cause existed to deny his application. Even though five of the six arrests were dismissed or resolved, the respondent still considered the circumstances surrounding each arrest.

Petitioner claims that the respondent acted improperly handing over his decision-making authority to the Westchester Department of Public Safety. However, the Westchester Department of Public Safety only provided the respondent with a recommendation of denial. In the respondent’s written decision, it clearly shows that the Department’s recommendation was not the sole basis for denying the petitioner’s application for a pistol license.

The court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without costs or disbursements.

Read more about this Article 78 case here.

To read about more Article 78 cases go to http://www.sheerinlaw.com/?id=78


 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on May 15, 2010 by Kevin Sheerin

Mayor Bloomberg recommends streamlining application process

 The New York Times reports that Mayor Bloomberg has recommended streamlining the pistol license application process by having the NYPD Pistol License Division open one night a week and providing quicker approvals or denials of applications.  Read the article by clicking here  www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/nyregion/15guns.html To view the rules click here nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp

Tags: , , ,
Posted on November 3, 2008 by Kevin Sheerin

Article 78 seeking reinstatement of pistol license denied

Matter of Leto v. Mulvey

Petitioner, John Leto, brought about this Article 78 case to get the Court to annul the Nassau County Police Department’s (NCPD) decision to revoke his pistol license and reinstate his license. Leto was issued a Nassau County Pistol License in July of 2004. He lost his pistol license after a series of altercations with his ex-girlfriend that resulted in his arrest and an order of protection being issued.

 

On November 6, 2004, Petitioner followed his ex-girlfriend, Donna Composto, in his motor vehicle and repeatedly cut her off in traffic. He then called her on her cell phone and made inappropriate remarks. When Ms. Composto reached her destination, Petitioner harassed her in the parking lot, inside at the event she was attending, and after the event when Ms. Composto returned to her vehicle, he threatened her with a gun. Ms. Composto complained to the NCPD resulting in Leto’s arrest, an order of protection against him, and a suspension of his pistol license. In March 2005, Petitioner violated the order of protection and was arrest and charged with second degree criminal contempt.

 

Petitioner’s pistol license was revoked in March of 2007. Petitioner denied any wrong doing and submitted into evidence a letter from Ms. Composto recanting her prior accusation that Leto displayed a firearm on the evening of November 6, 2004. Petitioner argued that no weight should be given to the allegations of his ex-girlfriend due to the recantation letter and that he otherwise had a clean record. Petitioner also relied heavily on Schneider v. Mulvey where the Court vacated the NCPD’s revocation of a pistol license because petitioner was unable to cross examine a witness at his hearing. The Court argued that Petitioner was not denied the right to confront and cross examine Ms. Composto at the hearing. She was not in court because she was out of town. Petitioner could have given her a subpoena to appear in court or sought an adjournment.

 

Accordingly, the Court found the respondent’s determination to revoke Petitioner’s pistol license to be rational and neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Tags: , ,