Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rombom v. Kelly

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


May 11, 2010

IN RE STEVEN P. ROMBOM, PETITIONER,
v.
RAYMOND W. KELLY, AS POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT.

Determination of respondent Police Department License Division, dated August 6, 2008, revoking petitioner's premises-residence handgun license and rifle/shotgun permit, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Marcy S. Friedman, J.], entered May 5, 2009) dismissed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

114616/08

The determination is supported by substantial evidence that petitioner lacks the good moral character to possess the subject license (see 38 RCNY 5-02[a]) and permit (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-303[a][2]). Such evidence consists of the record in a prior, 2005 proceeding that resulted in the revocation of petitioner's business-carry pistol license on a finding that he conspired with another individual to deceive the License Division over a period of years about his business address (see Matter of Fastag v Kerik, 295 AD2d 114 [2002]). There was also substantial evidence that petitioner did not reside or have a principal place of business in New York City, as required to possess a premises-residence handgun license (38 RCNY 5-02[g]; see Matter of Mahoney v Lewis, 199 AD2d 734, 735 [3d Dept 1993]). Such evidence consists of petitioner's failure to produce any gas, electricity or telephone bills for his alleged Brooklyn residence, his use of a Brooklyn P.O. box as the address on his tax returns and on his recently acquired New York State non-driver's ID, and his maintenance of a Texas driver's license since 1984. No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer's findings of credibility (see Sewell v City of New York, 182 AD2d 469, 473 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 756 [1992]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100511

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.