June 28, 2013
IN THE MATTER OF JOSHUA R. GALLETTA, PETITIONER, HON.
JOHN H. CRANDALL, COUNTY AND SURROGATE COURT JUDGE, RESPONDENT.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] ) to annul the determination of respondent. The determination denied petitioner's pistol permit application.
TODD D. BENNETT, HERKIMER, FOR PETITIONER.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: In this original CPLR article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 506 [b] ), petitioner contends that the determination denying his application for a pistol permit is arbitrary and capricious. We reject that contention. " 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, have shown themselves to be lacking the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous
instrument' " (Matter of Dorsey v Teresi, 26 A.D.3d 635, 636; see Matter of Peterson v Kavanagh, 21 A.D.3d 617, 617—618). "Respondent is vested with broad discretion in making the determination to grant or deny a pistol permit to an individual and may do so for any good cause" (Dorsey, 26 A.D.3d at 636 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Papineau v Martusewicz, 35 A.D.3d 1214, 1214; Matter of DiMonda v Bristol, 219 A.D.2d 830, 830).
Here, there are several factors that militate in favor of granting petitioner's application, including the facts that he is gainfully employed and served his country honorably in the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, considering petitioner's past unlawful behavior, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying the application. We note that petitioner, in his written statements submitted to the court in support 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 pleaded guilty to multiple offenses.