You are here: / / FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF...
,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.

The Fourth Department determined Family Court did not have the authority to revoke respondent’s firearm permit as part of an order of protection:

Under Family Court Act § 846-a, the court may revoke a license to carry and possess a firearm “[i]f the court determines that the willful failure to obey [a protective] order involves violent behavior constituting the crimes of menacing, reckless endangerment, assault or attempted assault.” Where, as here, no such determination is made, the court is not authorized to revoke a respondent’s firearms permit … . Moreover, restriction of respondent’s right to use or possess firearms was not warranted under Family Court Act § 842-a, inasmuch as the court did not find, and could not find based on the evidence at the hearing, “that the conduct which resulted in the issuance of the order of protection involved (i) the infliction of physical injury . . . , (ii) the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument . . . , or (iii) behavior constituting any violent felony offense” (§ 842-a [2] [a]), or that there is a “substantial risk that the respondent may use or threaten to use a firearm unlawfully against the person or persons for whose protection the order of protection is issued” (§ 842-a [2] [b]). We thus modify the order by vacating the provision directing that respondent is not to use or possess firearms nor hold or apply for a pistol permit during the pendency of the order. Matter of Schoenl v Schoenl, 2016 NY Slip Op 01060, 4th Dept 2-11-16

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF ORDER OF PROTECTION)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF ORDER OF PROTECTION)/FIREARMS PERMIT (FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF ORDER OF PROTECTION)

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ARM-WRESTLED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED INJURY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING.
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).
A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
FRAUD WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY TO THE FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, THE JUDICIARY LAW 487 CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).
​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIGUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS SPONTANEOUS, CASE HELD IN RESERVE TO ALLOW COUNTY COURT TO RULE ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUPPRESSION MOTION.

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

MOTHER DEMONSTRATED CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT... TRUST WHICH ALLOWED PETITIONER’S CHILDREN TO DISTRIBUTE PRINCIPAL TO PETITIONER...