| Matter of Moreno v Cacace |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03520 [61 AD3d 977] |
| April 28, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Alexander A. Moreno, Petitioner, v SusanCacace, as a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Susan Anspach of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent SusanCacace, a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, dated June 26, 2008, which, after ahearing, revoked the petitioner's pistol license.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
"The State has a substantial and legitimate interest and indeed, a grave responsibility, ininsuring the safety of the general public from individuals who, by their conduct, have shownthemselves to be lacking the essential temperament or character which should be present in oneentrusted with a dangerous instrument" (Matter of Pelose v County Ct. of WestchesterCounty, 53 AD2d 645, 645 [1976]; see Matter of Manne v Main, 8 AD3d 790, 791 [2004]; Matterof Gerard v Czajka, 307 AD2d 633, 633 [2003]).
"In determining whether to revoke a pistol permit pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00(11), the [licensing authority] is vested with broad discretion to resolve factual and credibilityissues, and [its] determination is accorded great weight" (Matter of Pacicca v Allesandro, 19 AD3d 500, 500 [2005]; seeMatter of Colin v People, 92 AD2d 697, 698 [1983]).
Where a licensee challenges a determination, made after a hearing, to revoke his or her [*2]pistol license, the only issues to be reviewed by this Court arewhether a rational basis exists for the licensing authority's determination, or whether thedetermination is arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Simmons v New York City Police Dept. License Div., 35AD3d 748, 749 [2006]; Matter ofPapaioannou v Kelly, 14 AD3d 459, 460 [2005]).
Here, there was testimony at the hearing that the petitioner failed to comply with a policeofficer's directive to exit his vehicle after the police officer determined the potential presence ofa firearm inside the vehicle. The testimony indicated that the petitioner, who was described as"irate," had to be physically removed from his vehicle by police officers who were attempting tosecure their own safety. A cocked and loaded revolver was thereafter recovered from the mappouch on the back of the front passenger seat.
This evidence, credited by the County Court, along with other indications of the petitioner'smoral character and temperament, was sufficient to provide a rational basis for the CountyCourt's determination revoking the petitioner's Westchester County pistol license and, as such,the determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Minervini v Kelly, 22 AD3d 238, 239 [2005];Matter of Gerard v Czajka, 307 AD2d at 633; Matter of Porter v Kelly, 272AD2d 333 [2000]; Matter of Panaro [County of Westchester], 250 AD2d 616, 616[1998]; Matter of County of Westchester v D'Ambrosio, 244 AD2d 334, 334 [1997];see also Matter of Pelose v County Ct. of Westchester County, 53 AD2d at 645).
In light of the foregoing, the petitioner's remaining contention has been rendered academic.Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.