| Matter of Warmouth v Zuckerman |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02659 [138 AD3d 752] |
| April 6, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Geoffrey Warmouth,Petitioner, v David S. Zuckerman, Respondent. |
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains, NY (Brian T. Stapleton of counsel), forpetitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michelle R. Lambert ofcounsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent,David. S. Zuckerman, a Judge of the County Court, Westchester County, datedDecember 2, 2014, which, after a hearing, revoked the petitioner's pistol license.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and theproceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
On March 12, 2014, officers from the Greenburgh Police Department transported thepetitioner involuntarily to the Westchester County Medical Center for an emergencypsychiatric evaluation after they found him living in a "very dangerous condition." Hishouse had no heat or running water and was soiled with human and animal feces, anddead animals were present in the living quarters. The house was so cluttered that it wasconsidered a fire hazard. The petitioner himself was "in a distressed and disheveledcondition."
The psychiatrist who evaluated the petitioner learned that he had a history of mentalillness and that his condition had been deteriorating for several years. Upon determiningthat the petitioner was likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm tohimself or others, the psychiatrist, as mandated by Mental Hygiene Law§ 9.46 (b), filed a report with the Westchester County Mental HealthCommissioner. A notice was then sent to the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services(see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.46 [b]). After a non-fingerprint matchidentified the petitioner as a firearm licensee, the report was forwarded to the CountyCourt. At that point, pursuant to Penal Law § 400 (11) (b), the respondent, aJudge of the County Court acting in his administrative capacity as a county licensingofficer (see Penal Law § 265.00 [10]), temporarily suspended thepetitioner's pistol license. The respondent afforded the petitioner a hearing and, after thehearing, issued a determination revoking his pistol license. The petitioner thencommenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in this Court seeking to annulthe determination.
"The State has a substantial and legitimate interest and indeed, a grave responsibility,in insuring the safety of the general public from individuals who, by their conduct, haveshown themselves to be lacking the essential temperament or character which should bepresent in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument" (Matter of Pelose v County Ct.of [*2]Westchester County, 53 AD2d 645, 645[1976]; see Matter ofKaragolian v Walsh, 107 AD3d 715, 715 [2013]; Matter of Moreno v Cacace, 61AD3d 977, 978 [2009]). Penal Law § 400.00 (1), which sets forth theeligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license, requires, inter alia, that theapplicant be of good moral character with no prior convictions of a felony or seriousoffense, and a person "concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of thelicense" (Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [n]; see Matter of Karagolian vWalsh, 107 AD3d at 715-716; Matter of Velez v DiBella, 77 AD3d 670, 670 [2010])." 'Where a licensee challenges a determination, made after a hearing, to revokehis or her pistol license,' or to deny reinstatement of a permit previously revoked, wereview only 'whether a rational basis exists for the licensing authority's determination, orwhether the determination is arbitrary or capricious' " (Matter of Karagolian vWalsh, 107 AD3d at 716, quoting Matter of Moreno v Cacace, 61 AD3d at978; see Matter of Simmons vNew York City Police Dept. License Div., 35 AD3d 748, 749 [2006]).
Here, at the hearing, testimony was elicited regarding the petitioner's deplorableliving conditions, the deteriorating state of his mental health, and his inability to properlycare for himself, his environment, or his possessions. Contrary to the petitioner'scontention, this evidence, which was credited by the respondent, was sufficient toprovide a rational basis for the determination revoking his pistol license. As such, thedetermination was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Karagolian v Walsh, 107 AD3d 715 [2013];Matter of Moreno v Cacace,61 AD3d 977 [2009]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Barros, JJ.,concur.