Gonzalez v. Lawrence
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Robbins v. Warhit (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Jackson v. Anderson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Harrison v. Warhit (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Matter of Tuttle v. Cacace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Kelly v. Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Kelly v. Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Velez v. DiBella (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Matter of Lawtone-Bowles v. Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Marino v. Hubert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Marino v. Hubert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Bagan v. Reitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Matter of Nelson v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Feerick v. McGuire (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Ricciardone v. Murphy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of MVM Constr., LLC v. Westchester County (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Praino v. Forman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Armacida v. Reitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Pignataro v. Cacace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Fortuniewicz v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
“A pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny an application for any good cause” (Matter of Orgel v DiFiore, 303 AD2d 758 [2003]; see Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [g]; Matter of Biganini v Gallagher, 293 AD2d 603 [2002]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination denying his application was rationally based, supported by substantial evidence in the record, and neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Sarro v Smith, 8 AD3d 395 [2004]; Matter of Orgel v DiFiore, supra at 759). His three arrests and failure, on a prior Nassau County application, to disclose the arrests and related revocation of his New York City pistol license were sufficient to support the respondent’s determination (see Matter of Romanoff v Kelly, 23 AD3d 212 [2005]; Matter of Hock v Scarpino, 185 AD2d 237, 238 [1992]; Matter of Anderson v Mogavero, 116 AD2d 885 [1986]). The fact that, on two of those occasions, the charges against the petitioner were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and eventually dismissed does not disqualify the circumstances surrounding the arrests from consideration (see Matter of Peric v New York City Police Dept., License Div., Rifle/Shotgun Section, 5 AD3d 142 [2004]).
■ Moreover, the petitioner’s constitutional challenge to the licensing scheme is unfounded (see Bach v Pataki, 408 F3d 75 [2005], cert denied — US — , 126 S Ct 1341 [2006]). Rivera, J.P, Spolzino, Ritter and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.