AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL T. SARRO, petitioner, v. MARY H. SMITH, respondent.

DECISION, ORDER JUDGMENT

Upon the papers filed in support of the proceeding and the cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the cross motion is denied, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

A licensing officer has broad discretion in determining whether "proper cause" exists for the issuance of a "carry concealed" license (Penal Law § 400.00[f]) and may deny such application for good cause ( see Penal Law § 400.00[g]; Matter of Orgel v. DiFiore, 303 A.D.2d 758; Matter of Bando v. Sullivan, 290 A.D.2d 691, 692; Matter of Fromson v. Nelson, 178 A.D.2d 479). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination denying his application had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious ( see Matter of Hassig v. Nicandri, 2 A.D.3d 1118, lv denied N.Y.3d [Mar. 25, 2004]; Matter of Dlugosz v. Scarano, 255 A.D.2d 747, 748, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, cert denied 528 U.S. 1079).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN THE MATTER OF SARRO v. SMITH
(Jun 7, 2004)