You are here: / / Denial of Pistol Permit Application Was Based Upon a Misinterpretation...
,

Denial of Pistol Permit Application Was Based Upon a Misinterpretation of Penal Law 400.00

The Third Department determined County Court had based its denial of petitioner’s pistol permit application upon a misreading of Penal Law 400.00.  County Court interpreted the statute to mean that the prior revocation of a pistol permit for any reason rendered the petitioner ineligible.  However, the statute should have been interpreted to refer only to prior revocations pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 530.14 and Family Court Act 842-a:

Respondent denied petitioner’s pistol permit application based upon Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) (formerly Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [e]), finding that petitioner was ineligible for a pistol permit because of the prior revocation of his permit. Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (k) provides that no permit may be issued to an individual “who has [] had a license revoked or who is [] under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of [CPL] 530.14 . . . or [Family Ct Act § 842-a].” Respondent interpreted this statute as two separate clauses and automatically barred petitioner from being issued a permit because his license had previously been revoked, despite the fact that the revocation was unrelated to either CPL 530.14 or Family Ct Act § 842-a.

We agree with petitioner that this was erroneous, as our reading of the statute indicates that the bar to issuance of a pistol permit “applies only in conjunction with the application of the Criminal Procedure Law and Family Court Act sections cited therein, which deal with orders of protection, and provides that a person who has previously had a firearms license revoked pursuant to those sections is ineligible to hold such a license”… .  * * *

Although the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permit and the reasons therefor unquestionably could have some bearing on whether there is “good cause” to deny his current application (Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [n]), respondent’s denial of the application was based, not on a finding of “good cause” but, rather, upon respondent’s misinterpretation of Penal Law § 400 (1) (k). Matter of Gerard v Koweek, 2014 NY Slip Op 08084, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

You might also like
Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received
DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TAX AND WAGE DOCUMENTS AND TO PROVIDE FACTUAL BASES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED DEFENDANTS’ BLANKET ASSERTIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM AN ACTION TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY STAY WAS LIFTED; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; DISAGREEING WITH THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO INTERPOSE A COUNTERCLAIM TO CANCEL THE MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (THIRD DEPT).
Equipment Leases Are Not “Securities” for Purposes of Tax Law
HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL A PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELEASE (THIRD DEPT).
ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
CITY DID NOT VIOLATE THE PUBLIC USE DOCTRINE AND COMPLIED WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) IN APPROVING THE TAKING OF LAND FOR A BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OF PREJUDICE, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Court Failed to Warn the Defendant that His Lack of Knowledge, When Compared... Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained