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two separate clauses and automatically barred petitioner from being issued a permit because his license had previously been revoked, despite the fact that the revocation was unrelated to either CPL 530.14 or Family Ct Act § 842-a.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
IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307 IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THE FAILURE TO MAKE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO COMPLY WARRANTED DENIAL OF A MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 306-b (THIRD DEPT).
VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCES OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND THE RELATED CORRESPONDENCE DID NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE CORRESPONDENCE DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MOTHER AND FATHER NEGLECTED THE NEWBORN WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR AMPHETAMINES AND DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED SUBUTEX; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD’S LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND NEED FOR COMFORTING WAS RELATED TO AMPHETAMINES AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBUTEX; FATHER’S “HOSTILE” BEHAVIOR TOWARD PETITIONERS AND HIS REFUSAL TO SIGN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WERE NOT VALID GROUNDS FOR A NEGLECT FINDING (THIRD DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
Retroactive Transfer of Liability to Special Fund Proper
THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN SESSION (THIRD DEPT). ​
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict

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