From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milo v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 1995
211 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 17, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).


Contrary to petitioner's contention, the IAS Court properly found that petitioner failed to demonstrate "proper cause" for the issuance of a concealed handgun (Matter of Conciatori v Brown, 201 A.D.2d 323). Even assuming that petitioner established that he made weekly cash deposits of approximately $4,000, petitioner did not demonstrate "a special need for the license distinguishable from that of other persons similarly situated." (Supra.) Moreover, the fact that petitioner, owner of an elevator repair service, works in areas noted for criminal activity and is occasionally called upon for night-time emergencies does not automatically entitle petitioner to a license. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent's determination to deny the application was either arbitrary or capricious.

We have considered petitioner's other claims and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Milo v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 17, 1995
211 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Milo v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALPHONSE A. MILO, Appellant, v. RAYMOND W. KELLY, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 17, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 322

Citing Cases

Fata v. Shea

While petitioner produced some evidence of occasional cash deposits, they were infrequent and amounted to, at…