Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Thomas J. EVANGELISTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, etc., Respondent-Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered August 5, 2003, which denied petitioner bail bondsman's application to annul respondent Police Commissioner's denial of petitioner's application for a carry business pistol license, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The license was properly denied upon consideration of the circumstances surrounding petitioner's arrests (see Matter of Peric v. New York City Police Dept., 5 A.D.3d 142, 772 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2004] ). Though the 1976 and 1977 arrests are remote in time, the circumstances surrounding them are troubling, and petitioner's activities leading to his arrest in 1998 for criminal impersonation suggest that his judgment has not improved in the intervening years. Regardless of whether it could be proven that petitioner was guilty of criminal impersonation, his pursuit of the target precipitated a dangerous incident that resulted in injury to 11 police officers and the target's death by suicide. Petitioner's failure to appreciate the potential for danger caused by his actions rationally supports respondent's finding that he lacks the requisite character and fitness to carry a concealed weapon (cf. Matter of Harris v. Codd, 57 A.D.2d 778, 394 N.Y.S.2d 210 [1977], affd. 44 N.Y.2d 978, 408 N.Y.S.2d 501, 380 N.E.2d 327 [1978] ). A different conclusion is not required by the fact that petitioner has a valid business carry permit for the rest of New York State (cf. Matter of Abramowitz v. Safir, 293 A.D.2d 352, 742 N.Y.S.2d 195 [2002] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 08, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)