You are here: / / Article 78 Is Proper Mechanism for Seeking Return of Property Held by the...
,

Article 78 Is Proper Mechanism for Seeking Return of Property Held by the Police Department/Here Petitioner Was Not Entitled to Return of Firearm Not Licensed in New York/Firearms Owners’ Protection Act Did Not Apply

The Second Department determined that, although an Article 78 proceeding can be used to seek the return of property from the police department, the proceeding can not be used to seek the return of contraband.  Under the facts here, the firearm at issue was contraband because the petitioner did not have a license to possess it in New York, in spite of the fact the firearm had been legally purchased and possessed in California. In addition, the court held that the petitioner was not simply transporting the firearm through New York, an act protected by the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 USC 926A):

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (18 USC § 926A) was not applicable. “Section 926A permits a licensee, in certain circumstances, to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm'” … . The firearm owner must be actually engaging in travel or acts incidental to travel …, and during the transportation, the weapon and ammunition must not be readily accessible … . Here, the petitioner failed to establish that he was only engaged in travel through New York so as to invoke the protection of section 926A … . Matter of Khoshneviss v Property Clerk of NYC Police Dept, 2014 NY Slip Op 08844, 2nd Dept 12-17-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAIVED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Reassessment of Improved Property Was Not an Unconstitutional Selective Assessment
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR.
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
REVIEW POWERS OF A MASTER ARBITRATOR EXPLAINED; HERE THE MASTER ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY VACATED AND THE ORIGINAL ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Deeply Divided Court Reverses Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution-False... CPL 330.30 Motions Based Upon Matters Outside the Record Properly Denied/Although...