Hassig v. Nicandri, 2 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Hassig v. Nicandri, 2 A.D.3d 1118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Finkle v. Herrick (nyappdiv, 2013-12-26)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Finkle v. Herrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Upon our review, respondent’s resolution of factual issues and credibility assessments are accorded deference (see Matter of Gaul v Giardino, 95 AD3d at 1457 ; Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]), and the determination will not be disturbed “absent an abuse of discretion or a showing that it was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner” (Matter of Dorsey v Teresi, 26 AD3d 635, 636 [2006]; see Matter of Kerr v Teresi, 91 AD3d at 1154 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Finkle v. Herrick
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Upon our review, respondent’s resolution of factual issues and credibility assessments are accorded deference (see Matter of Gaul v Giardino, 95 AD3d at 1457 ; Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]), and the determination will not be disturbed “absent an abuse of discretion or a showing that it was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner” (Matter of Dorsey v Teresi, 26 AD3d 635, 636 [2006]; see Matter of Kerr v Teresi, 91 AD3d at 1154 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kerr v. Teresi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
On this record, we cannot say that respondent’s decision to revoke petitioner’s pistol permit was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Dorsey v Teresi, 26 AD3d at 636 ; Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d at 1119).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Graefe v. County of Westchester
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Thus, the respon dent’s determination to revoke the petitioner’s firearm license had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003]; Matter of Panaro [County of Westchester], 250 AD2d 616, 616 [1998]; see also Matter of Saccoccio v Lange, 194 AD2d 794, 794-795 [1993]; Matter of County of Westchester v D'Ambrosio, 244 AD2d 334, 334 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nichols v. Richards (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Indeed, even petitioner admitted that his actions reflected “poor judgment” on his part, and that conduct provided an ample basis from which respondent could conclude that petitioner lacks the requisite temperament and character to carry a pistol (see Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d at 1119; Matter of Seamon v Coccoma, 281 AD2d 824, 825 [2001]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) New York & Atlantic Railway v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co., 112 NY 315, 324 [1889]; see Editorial Photocolor Archives v Granger Collection, supra at 523; Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71 , 75 [1976]; Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dorsey v. Teresi
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Based upon our review of this evidence, we do not find respondent’s conclusion, that petitioner does not possess the “maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment” necessary to have a pistol permit, either unsupported by the record or arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Peterson v Kavanagh, supra at 618; Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anstey v. Palmatier
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
While this contention was not raised in Family Court, inasmuch as it implicates Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it is not waivable and we therefore will consider it (see Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see" Falcone v. O'Connor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
A licensing official “is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on a permit application and may deny it for any good cause” (Matter of Vale v Eidens, 290 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]; see Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]; Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [g]).
discussed Cited "see" Falcone v. O'Connor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
A licensing official “is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on a permit application and may deny it for any good cause” (Matter of Vale v Eidens, 290 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]; see Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]; Penal Law § 400.00 [1] [g]).
discussed Cited "see" Salem v. Geraci
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
In any event, were we to reach the merits of the propriety of the revocation, we would conclude based on the record before us that petitioner “lack[s] the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument” (Matter of Peterson v Kavanagh, 21 AD3d 617, 618 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Matter of Hassig v Nicandri, 2 AD3d 1118 , 1119 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]; Matter of Vale v Eidens, 290 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]; Matter of Madden v Marlow, 214 AD2d 735 [1995]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Donald L. Hassig
v.
Eugene L. Nicandri, as St. Lawrence County Judge
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 18, 2003.
2 A.D.3d 1118
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13548
Cardona.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered July 30, 2002 in St. Lawrence County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

[*1119] In October 2001, petitioner engaged in heated verbal exchanges with the Chief Clerk of the St. Lawrence County Family Court over a matter involving his brother. Subsequently, he was served with an order suspending his pistol permits. Thereafter, respondent presided over an evidentiary hearing resulting in the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permits. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County, seeking to nullify respondent’s decision. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack-of subject matter jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted the motion, prompting this appeal.

Initially, we note that inasmuch as respondent’s authority to revoke the pistol permits derived from his position as County Judge (see Penal Law § 400.00 [11]), the instant proceeding should have been commenced in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 (b) (1) (see Matter of Finley v Nicandri, 272 AD2d 831, 831 [2000]; Matter of Budde v Rubin, 89 AD2d 1016 [1982]). This defect, implicating Supreme Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, cannot be waived (see Matter of Finley v Nicandri, supra at 831). Nevertheless, as requested by petitioner, we will treat the proceeding as though it was an original application in this Court and consider the merits (see id. at 832; Matter of Santorelli v District Attorney of Westchester County, 252 AD2d 504 [1998]; Matter of Schnell v Spano, 120 AD2d 669 [1986]; Matter of Budde v Rubin, supra; see also 6 NY Jur 2d, Article 78 and Related Proceedings § 173).*

Significantly, “respondent is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on a [pistol] permit application and may deny it for any good cause” (Matter of Vale v Eidens, 290 AD2d 612, 613 [2002]). Here, after listening to the testimony of petitioner, his brother, the Chief Clerk and two police officers, respondent concluded that petitioner did not possess the temperament necessary to have a pistol permit. Affording deference to respondent in resolving factual and credibility issues, we find no abuse of discretion in the revocation of petitioner’s pistol permits (see Matter of Gerard v Czajka, 307 AD2d 633 [2003]; Matter of Finley v Nicandri, supra at 831).

Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged[*1120] that the determination of respondent suspending petitioner’s pistol permits is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Respondent maintains, citing, inter alia, the case of Matter of Nolan v Lungen (61 NY2d 788 [1984]), that the petition should be dismissed outright on jurisdictional grounds. However, Nolan involved a situation where a party did not name a judge as a respondent (see CPLR 506 [b]) and, therefore, under such circumstances, conversion to an original application to the Appellate Division is not possible (see Matter of County of Westchester v D‘Ambrosio, 244 AD2d 334, 334 [1997]).