| Matter of Galletta v Crandall |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04923 [107 AD3d 1632] |
| June 28, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Joshua R. Galletta, Petitioner, v John H.Crandall, County and Surrogate Court Judge, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of theSupreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to annulthe determination of respondent. The determination denied petitioner's pistol permitapplication.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costsand the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: In this original CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 506[b] [1]), petitioner contends that the determination denying his application for a pistolpermit is arbitrary and capricious. We reject that contention. " 'The State has a substantialand legitimate interest and[,] indeed, a grave responsibility, in insuring the safety of thegeneral public from individuals who, by their conduct, have shown themselves to belacking the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrustedwith a dangerous instrument' " (Matter of Dorsey v Teresi, 26 AD3d 635, 636 [2006]; see Matter of Peterson vKavanagh, 21 AD3d 617, 617-618 [2005]). "Respondent is vested with broaddiscretion in making the determination to grant or deny a pistol permit to an individualand may do so for any good cause" (Dorsey, 26 AD3d at 636 [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see Matter ofPapineau v Martusewicz, 35 AD3d 1214, 1214 [2006]; Matter of DiMondav Bristol, 219 AD2d 830, 830 [1995]).
Here, there are several factors that militate in favor of granting petitioner'sapplication, including the facts that he is gainfully employed and served his countryhonorably in the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, considering petitioner's past unlawfulbehavior, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying theapplication. We note that petitioner, in his written statements submitted to the court insupport of his application, did not accept responsibility for his prior actions and, indeed,seemed to suggest that he had done nothing wrong, despite the fact that he had pleadedguilty to multiple offenses. Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley andSconiers, JJ.