IN RE: Thomas E. PACICCA (2005)

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated September 14, 2004, which, without a hearing, revoked the petitioner's pistol permit, and motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

ORDERED that the motion is denied as academic in light of our determination on the merits of the proceeding;  and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

 In determining whether to revoke a pistol permit pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00(11), the respondent is vested with broad discretion to resolve factual and credibility issues, and his determination is accorded great weight (see Matter of Manne v. Main, 8 A.D.3d 790, 791, 778 N.Y.S.2d 210;  Matter of Gerard v. Czajka, 307 A.D.2d 633, 762 N.Y.S.2d 533).   Contrary to the petitioner's contention, “a formal adversarial hearing is not required before a pistol license is revoked” (Matter of Gordon v. LaCava, 203 A.D.2d 290, 610 N.Y.S.2d 66;  see also Matter of Dlugosz v. Scarano, 255 A.D.2d 747, 681 N.Y.S.2d 120, appeal dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 847, 688 N.Y.S.2d 493, 710 N.E.2d 1092, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 809, 694 N.Y.S.2d 631, 716 N.E.2d 696, cert. denied 528 U.S. 1079, 120 S.Ct. 798, 145 L.Ed.2d 673;  Matter of St.-Oharra v. Colucci, 67 A.D.2d 1104, 415 N.Y.S.2d 142).  “[A] formal hearing is not required prior to the revocation of a pistol permit as long as the licensee is given notice of the charges and has an adequate opportunity to submit proof in response” (Matter of Dlugosz v. Scarano, supra at 748, 681 N.Y.S.2d 120;  see Matter of Strom v. Erie County Pistol Permit Dept., 6 A.D.3d 1110, 776 N.Y.S.2d 685;  Matter of Dlugosz v. Scarano, supra;  Matter of Burke v. Colabella, 113 A.D.2d 794, 493 N.Y.S.2d 429).

Applying those principles, we find that the petitioner was given notice of the charges and evidence against him and was afforded an opportunity to present his case.   Moreover, the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see Matter of Davi v. Cosgrove, 211 A.D.2d 788, 621 N.Y.S.2d 386;  Matter of Gordon v. LaCava, supra ).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.