Matter of Rucker v NYC/NYPD License Div.
2010 NY Slip Op 08447 [78 AD3d 535]
November 18, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011


In the Matter of Robert Rucker, Appellant,
v
NYC/NYPDLicense Division, Respondent.

[*1]Robert Rucker, appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elizabeth S. Natrella of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered June 15, 2009,dismissing this proceeding to annul a determination denying petitioner's application for a premisesresidence handgun license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to whether it was arbitrary or capriciousor without a rational basis in the administrative record, and once it is determined that the agency'sconclusion had a sound basis in reason, the judicial function comes to an end (Matter of Partnership 92 LP & Bldg. Mgt. Co.,Inc. v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428 [2007],affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008]). Respondent's denial of petitioner's application was not arbitraryand capricious, and had a rational basis. Petitioner's failure to notify respondent of the fact that he hadchanged his residential and business addresses, that he had caused an order of protection to be issuedagainst his child's mother, and that he was the subject of 21 domestic incident reports casts doubt on hischaracter and fitness to possess a firearm (seeMatter of Kozhar v Kelly, 62 AD3d 540 [2009]; Matter of Del Valle v Kelly, 37 AD3d 311 [2007]).

The fact that there may be errors in some of the incident reports is of no moment because petitionerfailed to raise that issue below, and it is thus unpreserved for appellate review (see O'Neill v Julav Realty, 2 AD3d 194[2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]). In any event, there are approximately 17 domesticincident reports, where petitioner does not claim any errors, which can be relied on.

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.