New York Appellate Division Reports

MATTER OF PAPINEAU v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, OP 06-01815 [4th Dept 12-22-2006] 2006 NY Slip Op 09810 MATTER OF VINCENT H. PAPINEAU, JR., PETITIONER, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT JUDGE KIM MARTUSEWICZ AND JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF DOUGLAS KENNEDY, RESPONDENTS. OP 06-01815. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department. Decided and Entered: December 22, 2006.

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] [1]) to annul a determination of respondent Jefferson County Court Judge Kim Martusewicz denying petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.

VINCENT H. PAPINEAU, JR., PETITIONER PRO SE.

ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JENNIFER GRACE MILLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT JEFFERSON COUNTY COURT JUDGE KIM MARTUSEWICZ.

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., GORSKI, SMITH, AND PINE, JJ.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same
hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the
petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78
proceeding seeking to annul the determination of Kim
Martusewicz, Jefferson County Court Judge (respondent),
denying petitioner’s application for a pistol permit.
Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination
is not arbitrary and capricious. A licensing officer has
broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a
permit under Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (see Matter of
Fromson v Nelson, 178 AD2d 479; Matter of Covell v Aison,
153 AD2d 1001, lv denied 74 NY2d 615). The failure of
petitioner to report on his application two prior arrests
provided a sufficient basis to deny the application (see
Matter of DiMonda v Bristol, 219 AD2d 830; Matter of
Conciatori v Brown, 201 AD2d 323; Matter of Willis v
Treder, 127 AD2d 667, lv denied 69 NY2d 611; Matter of
Anderson v Mogavero, 116 AD2d 885). Contrary to the further
contention of petitioner, he was not denied due process by
respondent’s denial of his request for a hearing to contest
the determination. Petitioner did not dispute the factual
basis for denial of his application but sought a hearing to
explain the reasons for his failure to report the two prior
arrests. Although petitioner’s request for a hearing was
denied by respondent, petitioner’s two letters of
explanation were considered by respondent, who adhered to
his initial determination. We thus conclude that petitioner
was provided with a sufficient opportunity to respond (see
DiMonda, 219 AD2d at 831).