nypd disarms steve rombom

8/13/2019 NYPD DISARMS STEVE ROMBOM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nypd-disarms-steve-rombom 1/54

POLICE DEPARTMENTCITY OF NEW YORKLicense Division

----- - -- ~ . ~ -.------------In·_he Matter of the Application of

STEVEN ROMBOM.

License Nos. PR10039747, RS6249502

..

For a hearing .and determination pursuant to

Title 38 § 15 of the Rules of the City of New York

- X

Hearing Index No. 123/07

Tape Nos. 109A; 109B

Liceqsee appeals fr_m the 8-31-07 determination of the commanding officer of the License

Division which, after investigation, cancelled his Premises-Residence handgun license.1

A hearing was held in the above-entitled matter on December 19, 2007 before Hearing Officer

MARGARET L. SHIELDS, Esq. and adjourned to January 15, 2008 to allow the licensee to

· submit additional documentary evidence. Applicant STEVEN ROMBOM appeared in person

and by his attorney, ROBERT RACE, Esq., and testified on his own behalf. Investigator

SHELIA BROWN testified for the License Division .Incident Unit. Testimony was also taken

·from the licensee 's witness. MARIAN MINKOWICZ.

After listening to the testimony, reviewing the investigatory i le, and considering all of the

proofs, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law .

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Licensee Steven Rombom was made an "incident" and his handgun permit suspended when

he came into the License Division on 4-2-07 to request a release for his firearm, which he said

had been vouchered after his a r r ~ s t on 7-23-06 by federal authorities . He advised he had

; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ¥ p . ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ 1 ~ ~ f . ~ ~ 1 f r ~ ~ ~ ~ f f i : ¥ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ £ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g f 6 a 6 ~ i G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·firearms p e m i i t s ~ premise's-residence handgu:n lieense and rifle/shotgun permit, . . .

2. The Incident Notification Report, taken on 4-2-0Tby Investigator P. Brewster, reads:

Licensee sta ted that he went to thePet.

to pick up his firearms and was told thathe needs a [release form]. Licensee stated that he was arrested by the fed. gov.

and the arrest was dismissed. He also stated that he has a few pistol licenses in

several states. According to ALPS his pistol license bas been cancelled. Has

L Due to clerical error, this .determination omitted reference to the licensee's rifle/shotgun pcnnil Since this permit

was surrendered to the License Division on 2 ~ 0 7 ; the undersigned hearing officer considered that the licensee had

.sufficient notice that both p ~ r m i t were the subject of the within hearing. On the record counsel s tipulated his

agreement. .

1



'

POLICE DEPARTMENT

J vlr. Steven Rombom

Dear Mr..Rombom:

License DivisionHearings Appeals Unit

One Police Plaza, Room 110New York, NY 10038

Tel. 1-646-610-5873, 5560

August 6, 2008

Re: Hearing Index No. 123(07

License Nos. PR10039747, RS6249502

FIN L GENCY DETERMIN TION

As a result of an administrative hearing held December 19, 2007, which record

was held open until January 15, 2008, your Premises-Residence handgun l icense and

Rifle/Shotgun permit have been REVOKED. A copy of the hearing report is enclosed.

This determination concludes the Police Department s review of this matter . You

m ay appeallhis determination by commencing an Article 78 proceeding in SupremeCourt w ithin four months of the date of this letter.

Enclosure

c:Robert R. Race, Esq.

308 Atlantic Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Very tru urs,

i t « ~ ~f.homas}.:1. Prasso h · · . ·' ·

COURTESY o PROFESSIONALISM o RESPECT

Welb 3ft€:e: tn¢S;jpl:/ Jmyc.g®w-/ llll:vJ llall

.,.

:



MR MINKOWICZ: Ah, I see him, it s a difficultquestion because sometimes I see him ·like .ev.eryday. ·

HE RING OFFICER: So how often do you see Mi.Rombom? It's not a difficult question.

MR. ·MINKOWICZ: mean this month, or · twomonths ago? ·

HEARING OFFICER: How often do you see Mz:-.

Rombom?

MR. MINKOWICZ:. Depends ·which mon·th I said,

or which day. Sometimes I see him two, three times

a day, ~ e t i m e I see him once v e ~ y other week.

See Exhibit C, at 30/9.- 31/2.1

In addition to showing that t ~ e super was less than forthcoming, the testimony

contradicts what the super actually told Police Officer Levine. During the field visit, the super

told P o ~ i c e Officer L e v i n ~ that the last time he saw petitioner was a few weeks ago and that

petitioner was often away. See Exhibit P. As for the super s bias, it was highlighted when the

petitioner's attorney asked the super why he had told the police he co'uld not talk about the

building's tenants.

MR. MINKOWICZ: Answet the question. Ah, I

sai.d I m not autp.orized to, to do t after the question

w ~ if _ e j : V ~ ~ bere ..legal P t· S O . q l e t ~ g J ~ ~ e tl is,s o ~ e . : W e J : ; c i S w r u , ·used Hke t h i ~ I m::noLatitHodiea r i J ~ J , . ~ I : c ~ ~ e y ~ l i tiie p h < > ~ ~nurribeF and the address to the office where we have

all files about all tenants which are in the building.

AITORNEY: ~ y i you say that?·

MR. MINKOWICZ: Why?

AITORNEY: Yeah.

1

9tations to the hearing s transcript.are formatted as page number followed by line number.

-12-

•·



MR. MINKOWICZ: Urn, Mr. Rombom said like it

was during the time when I am buildmg a few times.

I bad visits from I believe FBI < ll.d when we spoke

with Mr. Rombom he said listen, don't say if you<;ion't have to to anybody anything ( :bout me

because I'm working, I'm doing these special things

and I don't want anybody to know about and you

know, just, just say you don't know or ?aying

whatever he said to say, you don't have to, de>n't

say anything about me if don't have>o

. See Exhibit C, at 31/20- 32/11.

Based the super's contradictory answers and bias, H.O. Shields did not find

credible the super's eventual estimate that petitioner was present 60% of the year. See Exhibit T.

Further undermining the super's estimate is his admission that he does not socialize with

petitioner and only.goes into petitioner's p a r ~ e n t twice aye . See Exhibit C, at 34/6-34/12.

. .

H.O. Shields also had a sound basis for finding the letter from the building owner

not credible. In 2005, the License Division revoked petitione:r;'s business carry handgun license

because petitioner conspired with a landlord and submitted a l ~ t t e r containing false information.

Here, petitioner is once again resting on a letter submitted by a l n ~ o r d and there is no

documentation supporting this letter other than a biased witness. See Exhibit J. As a result, H.O.

Shields rationally found lhe letter not credible. Moreover, the letter only states that petitioner is

a tenant of the s,Ubj"ect premises and that he does nol .h"ave a ) e < ~ , s ~ . Te:qf$"¢y. ~ l Q : n ~ . i ~ qot sllffici:ent' 1 ., ' ' • , , • ' • r 1 ·· . I, . } l • , '

to ~ v e a pe;s6n's domicile. See Mahoney v. Lewis, 199 A.D.2d 734 c3·rd ~ p 1993).

The arbitrary and capricious standard only requires that a rational basis support

the License Division's determination. To possess frrearrn," a e ~ s e e o-r: permittee must ·have

.good moral character. In add ition, a handgun licensee must primarily reside in New York Ci ty,

and the licensee cannot have any revoked licenses. The record establishes that petitioner dqes

not .J leet any of the requirements. Therefore, contrary to petitioner' s assertion, there.is not one

-13-

' ·r ;· ..

:

::

.

;

·:

·

;·



Second, p e t i t i o n e r attorney misrepresented Police Officer ·Levine's findings. Police Officer

Levine's report does not conclude that petitioner was a tenant or resident of he subject premises.

See Exhibit P. The r ~ p o r t only r e c o u n ~ o l i c ~ Officer Levine's interaction with the super and

does not make any factual conclusions. See id. Therefore, the alleged admissions that petitioner

references do not advance or prove that petitioner's domicile is in New York City

. Lastly, Petitioner's argument that o ·.Shields's decision should be reversed

because the laws and rules do not clearly define what constitutes a good cause for revocation is

equally without merit See Verified Petition, at 34. The Penal Law, the New York City

Administrative Code, and the Rules of the City of New York provide that the License Division

may deny an applicant's firearm · icense or permit for good cause. See Penal Law 400.00; 38

.RCNY § 5 -02(a); 10 NYC Admin. Code§ 303(a): The Division 's authority to revoke a :firearm

license or permit for good cause, a fourth and separate ground for revocation in this case, has

been widely upheld and confirmed. See Perlov v. Kelly, 21 A.D.3d 270 (1st Dep't.2005). See

also, Orgel v. DiFiore,.303 A.D.2d 758· (2sd Dep't 2003); Dorsey v. Teresi, 26 A.D.3d 635 3 r ~

Dep't 2006). Petitioner's flagrant violations, as previously discussed, provide ample good cause

for terminating his firearm license and permit.

POINT l l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t 4 ~ ~ ~ - . : ~ i W ~ Q · ~ ~ ~ . ~ : . : · ·FlltE:ARM .LICENSE AND PERMIT BASED

ON ST TUTORY VIOLATIONS ND DID

NOT SELECTIVELY ENFORCE ITS POLICY.

Petitioner's. allegations that the terms and conditions of his license and permit

were selectively enforced have no basis. See Verified Petition, at f 34. The License Division

based the revocation of petitioner 's r e m i s ~ s r e s i d e n c e handgun license and rifle/shotgun pern:iit

on well-recognized grounds, not suspect classifications. The regulations governing handguns

-15-

.

·.

·



·-·---:-· '···- - ,.,_______ ·-· .•. '-·-- -·-·· .. ---·- ----·· -· _ _ ....... .............- . · -· __ ,,

but three grounds for revoking petitioner's r e m i s e ~ r e s i d e n c e handgun license and rifle/shotgun

permit. See Verified Petition, a t ~ 15. Accordingly, the License Division's decision was l(ltional

.and supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioz:ter's argument that both H.O. Shields and Investigator Brown a d . m ~ t t e d to

petitioner having a New York domicile is without merit. See Verified Petition, at ~ , - r 20 and 22.

Petitioner's reference to paragraph 17 ofH.O. Shields's decision ·takes a statement by the bearing

officer out 9f context. In the first sentence of paragraph 17, H.O. S ~ states, "[h]is [referring

to petitioner] primary residence for the past 24 yearsh ~

been at [the Sl ;lbject premises]. See

Exhibit T. This n t ~ n c e is a restatement of petitioner' s testimony and not a conclusion reached

.by H.O. Shields. 'The paragraph immediately prior to this sentence begins with "[t]he licensee

testified...." See id. The sentence immediately follow:IDg this alleged admission states,

"[a]ccording to him [referring to petitioner]. .. ." ·See id . When taken out of context, the first

sentence of paragraph 17 is indeed misleading. However, when read in context, it becomes

evident that the sentence is a restatement of petitioner' s testimony and not an. independent

conclusion reached by H .O. Shields.

Similarly, when Investigator Brown's s t a t e ~ e n t is closely analyze.d, it does not

amount to · an admission about p e t i t i o . o , ~ r d o p r i ~ During t ~ e a d ~ ~ ~ p . ~ v e : . ~ W. . . . . . ., . . · · ·l . ;,. : . . . • .... . . ;{ · • :· ~ \ i : ~ ~

pecytioner's a t t o m ~ y asked Investigator ·BroWn. -se:vetal 'questions: One question -was' whether

Police Officer Levine had confirmed that petitioner was a tenant or resident of the subject

~ e m i s e s . Investigator Brown responded, "[c]orrect." See Exhibit C at 15-18-15-20. First it is

important to note that Investigator Brown only confirmed that petitioner was a tenant or a

resident of the subject premises. The underlying issue is not whether petitioner is a enant or

resident of the subject premises but whether the subject premises qualify as petitioner's domicile.

-14-

·,

··r

.

'

l

_

~ - =f

;·.'



. . _ • • . • • • . . . . . .... . . . . . . . , • .. ·· , • . ... .. _M_... : ·. r . ...... . . ... . .. _ • _

and r i f l e s / s h o ~ g u n s make it clear that the possessor of such .firearms is responsible for knowing

the rules and regulations that govern handguns and rifles/shotguns. See 38 RCNY §§ 3-03 and

5-33. The regulations'also make it clear that the License Division may revoke a license or permit

at any time i the licensee or permittee violates any of the rules ~ n d regulations. See 38 RCNY

§§ 5-21 and 5-22 and 10 NYC Admin. Code§ 1 0 ~ 3 0 3 g ) .

Here, petitioner does not possess the necessary good moral character to possess a

firearm and does not satisfy the ·requirements to possess a handgun. Petitioner's lack of moral

character is supported by seven years of deceit, during which time htf misrepresented the

existence of his business o f f i c ~ See Exhibit L. Regarding the handgun.requirements, petitioner

had the burden of proving that his d o ~ i c i l e was in New York City and that be ~ not have any

prior r e v o k ~ d licenses. See·38 RCNY § 5-01. A burden that he failed to meet s.ee Exhibit T.

Therefore, the License pivision revoked petitioner's license and pennit because he was m

violation of three separate, well-established requirements.

To prove an allegation of selective enforcement, a party must demonstrate there

was clear and intentional discriminatiC n against him or her. The Equal Protection Clause

requires that the government treat all similarly situated people alike." See Harlen Assocs. v

of laws applied . with evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and

illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances .. ." See YickWo v. Hopkins,

118 U.S. 356, ?73-74 (1886). The unlawful administration by state officers of a state stalute

fair on its f c e ~ resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is

not a denial of equal protection un)ess there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional ·

-16-

.'

.



or purposeful discrimination ... · a discnmipatory p u r p o ~ e is not presumed; there must be a

showing of clear and intention.al ~ i s c r i m i n a t i o n .. See Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8 (1944)

(internal citations and q u o t a ~ o n s omitted). Petitioner does not allege in his petition that there

was intentional discrimination.

Moreover, petitioner failed to allege that respondent's purported selective

enforcement was motivated by a constitutionally impermissible standard such as race or religion.

The New York Court of Appeals has explained,

[t]o invoke the. [equal protection] right successful1 y,

however,. both the ''unequal ·hand ·and the evileye reqUirements must be proven - to wit, there

must be not only a showing that the law was not

applied to others similarly situated but also that the

selective application of the law was deliberately

based upon an impermissible Standard such as race,

religion or some other arbitrary classification.

See 303 West 42nd Street Corp. v. Klein, 46 N.Y.2d 686, 693 (1979).

As an administrative agency, the License Division is vested w ith broad discretion

in interpreting itS rules. See Perlovv. Kelly, 21 A.D.3d 270 (1st Dep't 2005). See also, Orgel v.

DiFiore, 303 A.D.2d 758 (2sd Dep't 2003); Dorsey v. Teresi, 26 A.D.3d 635 3 rd Dep't 2006).

Given the public safety implications of firearms, t e License Division has a substantial and

. · . t e g j t i f : Q : ~ ~ Y_i.terest.-:in 4 l ~ u r i n g t 9 : ~ t o ~ y . P . ~ ~ 9 D , s a c c ~ p t @ t e qJ:xaf.a.cter p q s s e s ~ s.uch.Vf-eapons.: . : ~ · · :: · · :1... .. ·: • ;· < ~ ; : . _ ~ ~ - : ~ - . : i . : . : l t : ~ · ; . > . • : : ~ > : : ; > : . · :_ . · . · · · . · -:.. · . ... ;· .

See.Mahoney v. I99 A:D.2d 734 (3rd Dep1t 1993). See also, District of Columbia v.

Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2809 (U.S. 2008). By deceiving the License Division for ·rriany years

and not proving bis New City domiciliary, petitioner undermined the Division' s substantial

and legitimate interest. Accordingly, the Court should deny petitioner's selective enforcement

claim.

-17-

;

l

f:.

;



POINT IV

PETITIONER IS

DISCOVERY

INPROCEEDING

NOT

Tfll

ENTITLED

ARTICLE

TO

78

_

Petitioner is not entitled to discovery in this Article 78 proceeding, and his r e q u ~ s t

for disclosure should be denied. See Verified Petition, at I 34.

Under CPLR Section a party seeking discovery in a .Article 78 must request

permission from the court. In a·ddition., the party must show .that . the documents sought are .

material and necessary. See General Elec. Co. v. Macejka, 117 A.D.2d 896 3 rd Dep't 1986). f

tf1e discovery sought not necessary to resolve a relevant factual issue, discovery is not

appropriate. See In re Shore, 109 A.D.2d 842 (2d Dep 't 1985). See also, Arnot-Ogden

Memorial Hosp. v. Blue Cross of Central New York, 122 Misc.2d 639 (Sup.Ct. CherilUng Co.

1984) (discovery was refuse.d in an Article 78 proceeding because there were no disputed issues

of fact). [I]t is a well-established rule that the nature and purpose of summary proceedings are

such that disclosure should rarely be granted .] Pamela Equities Corp. v. o u i ~ Frev Co., 120

ise 2d 281, 281 (N.Y.Civ.Ct: 1983).

Because the re are no factual issues m this case, discovery is not necessary.

Petitioner's discovery requests are in con.hection to his selective enforcement claim and good

,-_ . . . . - . . . . : . . , . ·. . . .•

c a ~ $ e w g u r i l e n t ~ · See V ~ P ; f i e d P e t i t i o n £ t t i ~ ~ 4 ; .P:etitioner's s e l e c t i v ~ e n f o r c e m ~ n : t a j i r i• . • . : . • ; ; . . • . I . .

good cause argument both fail and are not relevant because the record establishes that

petitioner does not satisfy three well-recognized requirements to possess a handgun and a

. .

rille/shotgun. Petitioner does not have the adequate moral character. He does not satisfy the

residency requirement, and he has a prior revocation. The blatant ·and documented deceit

petitioner exhibited niles out any issue of fact concerningthe revocation and need (or discovery.

-18-

::

- ~

I



0 , _ .. ., , , • .__ 1 - - 4 - ~ • • • \ : .. ..._,., ,, .. . t ~ - • • : ' '-• ,. . I ' o : , , . •• • • ..,.:,,..:,._ - .,. • • ." • , . •- _ . -_ . .., ' : • . ' '. - - ~ - . , . -·--·

For these reasons, petitioner's request for discovery in this Article.78 proceeding

should be denied.

ON LUSION

The NYPD s decision to revoke petitioner's premises-residence handgun license

and rifle/shotgun permit was based on substantial evidence, and it was reasonable and rational.

Accordingly, the petition should be denied in all respects.

Dated: New York, New York

January 12, 2009 ·

-19-

MICHAEL A. CARDOZOCorporation Counsel of the

City OfNew York

Attorney for Respondent

100 Church Street, Room 5-177.New York, New York 10007"

(212) 788-8683

William H. Vidal

Assistant Corporation Counsel

_ • I I

·

·

.•

j·

-·



SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CO UNTY OF NEW YORK

-- - ---------------------- --- -- --- ----- -------------------- ------------ - X

1n the Matter of the Application of

STEVEN P ROMBOM,

Petitioner,

For a Judgment Pursuant to Articlt:: 78 of the Civil PracticeU tw and Rules.

-against-

RAYMOND W. KELLY, as Police.Commissioner of theCity of New York,

Respondent.

- . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : _ ___ X

· · · · ••. • ___ _ _ _ _ .. .. ____ _,__ __ ___,_..._ ....4_..:_..J-_

Illdex No· 114616/08

RESPONDENT S MEMOR NDUM OF L W

Preliminary Statement

R.espondent, Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New

York, submits this memorandum of law in opposition to petitioner's application fo r an order

pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules ( CPLR ) annulling the New York

P Departmei:Jt'S ( NYP,D ) 'decisiol_l to terminate p t i t i o n : ~ r s s e s - handgun

lite n:se r W ~ s h c ; > t g q n .perrnk

The NYPD 's decision to revoke petitioner's firearm license and permit was

rational an.d supported y substantial evidence. The City has a substantial and legitimate interest

in regulating the possess ion of firearms. The courts have upheld this interest by re.cognizing

licensing officers' broad discretion in awarding and revoking firearm licenses·and permits. The

NYPD 's License Division ( License Division ) revoked petitioner' s premises-residence handgun

-2-

·;

.

'·'



license and rifle/shotgun permit. because he did. not satisfy the requirements to possess such

firearms. First, petitioner demonstrated that he 9id not have tbe necessary good moral character.

Petitioner submitted false information and deceived the license Division for ·seven years.

Second, petitioner has a prior revoked license. Thirq, petitioner failed to prove that he prlinarily

resided in New York City. Accordingly, the Court should uphold the License Division 's .

decision and dismiss the t i o n

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

The relevant statutory provisiOJ?.S are set forth in the NYPD's Verified Answer,

and the NYPD respectfully refers t ~ e Court to ~ , - r 37-57 of the Verified Answer.

STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT FACTS

The factual background is set forth in the NYPD's Verified Answer, and the

·NYPD respectfully refers the Court to ~ - r 58-83of the Verified Answer.·

RGuMENT

POINT IT f i j ~ c O U R T SHOULD.i ._TRANSFER THE

IN$fAl¢ t A _ R r i c : £ i B 7 8 P . : R o € E E 1 n i TO ·

TilE: .· APPELLATE . DIVISION · · FOR

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REVIEW.

The CPLR allows for the review of administrative hearings to assess whether a

determination made as a result of a hearing held, .and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to

direction of law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence. · CPLR § 7804(4).

Where a trial court concludes that the case presented requires a substantial evidence review, tl .e

court must transfer the proceeding to the Appellate Division. See Mason v. Dep't of Bldgs., 759

.,_ :

;

L

r



N.Y.s. ·2d 470, 472 1 st Dep't 2003) . CPLR 7804(g) authorizes the court in which the Article

78 proceeding is commenced to d e c ~ d e any issues which would terminate the case if no issue of

substantial evidence s raised. Otherwise, the section requires the court to transfer the case to the

Appellate Division for disposition." See Al Turi Landfill v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl.

Conservation, 98 N.Y. 2d 758 , 760 (2002).

Here, a substantial evidence review is required because petitioner appeals a final

agency determination that was rendered after an administrative hearing at which evidence was

taken, as directed by law. A c ~ o r d i n g l y the . Court should transfer this proceeding to the

Appellate Division, First Department.

POINT II

THE NYPD'S DECISION TO REVOKE

PETITIONER'S FIREARM LICENSE ANDPERMIT WAS BASED -ON SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE AND IT WAS REASONABLE

AND NOT ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, OR

AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The decision by th NYPD's License Division to revoke petitioner s premises-

residence handgun license and rifle/shotgun permit was supported by substantial evidence and

not arbitrary or capricious. It is uncontested that petitioner provided false information ·and

.dec_ived the L i c ~ n s D i v i s ~ o n f ~ r many years. Moreoyer; in order to.possess a handgun license,

a icensee must .primarily reside m New York City, and a licensee cannot have prior revoked

licenses. Petitioner did not prove he primarily resided in the City, and his prior license -was

revoked. Because the .record establishes that petitioner does not have the moral .character to

possess firearms and does not satisfy tbe requirements for a handgun license, the Court should

uphold the License Division' s revocation.

. -. · . . ' • ...:;

l



_ .

pplicable Standard o Review

Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 10-131 and Penal Law Section 400.00

the Police Commissioner has full authority to grant or de:J?.y firearm permits. In exercising this

power, the Police C o ~ s s i o n e r is vested with broad discretion. See Perlov v. Kelly, 21.A.D.3d

270 (1st Dep't 2005). See also, Orgel v. DiFiore, 303 A.D.2d 758 (2sd Dep't 2003); Dorsey v_

Teresi, 26 A.D.3d 635 (3rd Dep't 2006). Judicial review of an a g e n ~ y s exercise o f discretion is

limited in scope.

Section 7803 of the CPLR provides m·pertinent part:

The only questions that may be raised m a

proceeding under this article are:

* * *

3. whether a .determination was made in violation

of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law

or was arbitrary and capricious ·or an ·abuse of

discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the

measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed;

or

. .4. whether .a determination made as a result of a

hearing held, and· at which evidence was taken,

pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record,

supported by substantial evidence.

Sub.stantial<eyiQ.ence meanS that;'the det¢rm;ination must be· supp()rted -by· facts-or. . .· ·.. -. . ,_ .• · .· - . .> . ' .

reasonable i n f e r e n ~ e s that can be d r a ~ n f r ~ m the r e ~ r d and ri::mst have a rational. .basis in the- .

law. "Rationality is what is reviewed under both the substantial evidence rule and the arbitrary

and capricious stanc -ard." See ·Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, .231 (1974). A court may

overturn an administrative action only if the record reveals no rational basis for it .See id. at 230;

Purdv v. Kriesberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 358 (1979). The Court of Appeals has 'defined substantial

evidence as more than · bare surmise, conjecture, speculation or rumor and "less than a

-5- .

: . . o ...... ··· •• · - • ; : . . ~ ; ~ :·

,··

·

.

;

·



- · .. ..... ... :: . _ : ; . _ t . .

preponderance of the evidence and has stated that it consists of such relevant proof as a

reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact. See 300

Grarnatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 4S N.Y.2d 176, 180 (1978). See also,

Consolidated Edison v. State Div. of Human Rights, 77 N.Y.2d 411, 417 (1991); Allen v. ·

Dowling; 214 A.D.2d 446 (1st Dep't. 1995). If the revie·wing court finds the determination is

supported by facts or reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record and has a rational

basis in the law, it must be confmned. See American Telephone Telegraph Co. v. State Tax

Comm'n, 61 N.Y.2d 393, 400 (1984).

The reviewing court does not examine the facts de novo to reach n independent

determination. See Marsh v. Hanky, 50 A.D.2d 687.(3rd Dep't. 1975). The reviewing court

may not substitute its own judgment of the evidence for that of the administratiye agency, but

should review the whole record to determine whether there exists a rational basis to support the

findings upon w h i ~ h the agency's determination is predicated. See Purdv, 47 N.Y.2d at 358 . f

the acts of the administrative agency find support in the record, its determination is conclusive

even i the c o ~ r t would have reached a contrary result. See Sullivan Co . Harness Racing Assn.

v. Glasser, 30 N.Y.2d 269, 278 (1972). Unless the reviewing court finds that the agency acted in

excess of its j u ~ s d k t i q n in violation of a laWful procedure, arbitrarily, or in al?use of its

d i ~ c r e t ] o n ~ e court:bas.no a l t e ~ a t ~ butt_o c o n f ~ the agericy' s decision. See ·Pell, 34 N.Y2d

at 231.

Furthermore, [i]t is well-settled . that the construction given statules and

regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, i f not irra tional or unreasonable,

should be upheld. See Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438 (1971). See also , Bernstein v.

Toia, 43 N:Y.2d 437, 448 (1977); Albano v. Kirby, 36 N.Y.2d 526, 532 (1975). While statutory

-6-

.

;

··

.



__ :_ .: .. .; : . . :.:.; __ .. ,.;,..:. .: . :• : _ , 1_:•..:::. ·.:. _: :. .. . . . . . _ . : : : ........ . .. . .. - . . . . : . " : ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ; . : ; G . - k

construction is the function of the courts, "where the question is one of specific application of a

broad statutory term in a proceeding in which the agency administering the statute must

determine it initially, the reviewing coUrt's function is limited." .See Board v. Hearst

Publications, 322 U.S. 111, 131 .(1944). The admin slrative determination is to l?e accepted by

the courts if it has warrant in the record' and a reasonable basis in law." See Lower Manhattan

Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Bd, 104 A.D.2d 223,224 (1st Dep' t 1984).

As stated in Tommy & Tina, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 95 A.D.2d

724 (1st Dep ' t 1983), aff d, 62 N.Y.2d 671 (1984):

[Ajn administrative agency s construction andinterpretation of its own regulations and of the

statute under which it functions is entitled to the

·greatest weight. (Matter of Herzog v. Jov, 74

A.D.2d 372, 375.) Absent an arbitrary or capricious· regulalion or in terpretation of said regulations, ·

courts should defer to the agency.

A court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and its role is

limited to a review of whether a rational basis.exists to support the agency's determination. See

Rudin Management Co. v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 215 A.D.2d

243 (1st Dep t. 1995).

B. The License Division's Decision Satisfies the Standard of Review:

The revocati(in ot ·petitioner s titearm license· and p ~ r n l i t was not arbit_atJ,

capricious, or an abuse of disCretion. The Division reached its decision after an investigation,

and the decisionis

rationally related to the record, which demonstrates petitioner does not sa tisfy

the requirements to possess firearms.

To possess a handgun or a r i f l e h o t ~ n the licensee/permittee must first be of

good moral character. See 38 RCNY § 5-02(a) and 10 NYC Admin. Code § 303(a)(2). Second,

there must be no good cause to deny the license or permit. See 38 RCNY § 5·-02(b) and 10 NYC

-7-

'

. :

i'

'

.



· ..

permit. See Exhibit t Good moral character is a s u b s ~ a n t i a l requirement for possessing a

firearm and petitioner s deceit w1dennined petitioner s character. See Lipton v. Ward, 116

A.D.2d 474 (1st Dep t 1988). See also, Pclose v. Cty Ct. of Westchester Cty., 53 AD.2d 645

(2nd Dep t 1976).

Petitioner s argument that he · was· prejudiced because he did not have an

opportunity to address the 2005 revocation is without merit. See Verified Petition, at T 32. The

revocation of petitioner s business carry handgun license ·should have resulted in the immediate

revocation of all of petitioner s firearm ijcenses and pe1mits. See 38 RCNY § 5-02(d). Most

likely, because of a clerical error, the License Division did not revoke petitioner s premises-

residence handgun license and rifle/shotgun permit. See Exhibit T. This was an .error that the

License Division was e n t i t ~ e ~ to correct and properly corrected. Caruso v. Ward, 143 Misc.2d

(N.Y.Sup.Ct . 1989), aff d 160 A.D.2d 540 (1st Dep t 1990). Moreover, the facts surrounding the

2005 r e v ~ c a ~ o n and petitioner s deceit are not in dispute, and they are supported by substantial

evidence. Therefore, the legal conclusions that H.O. Shields derived from the 2005 revocation ·

did not pre judice petitioner. Most importantly, petitioner requested a bearing in 2005 and had

the.-opportunity to defend his_actions. After the Division revoked his business carry handgun

l i ~ n s e ~ p e t i t i o n ~ r c h o ~ e not to ~ p p e a L ~ e ~ ~ . x B i l J . j L .. < f . 8 P . s ~ q ~ Y A ~ l Y ; p e t i f i q n ~ I : ~ q t J l O W seek -. . . . . ;> : · . . .

. o l a ~ q t t ~ s t i o n the L i ~ e . r i . s e D i v i s i o ~ c i c i d ~ c i f s i a · ·

In addition to not satisfying the good moral character requirement to possess

firearms, petitioner docs not ·satisfy the requirements to possC?ss a handgun. In order to posses a

handgun license, a licensee cannot have a prior revoked licf?nse and the licensee s domicile must

be n the county in which the licensee applied to possess a handgun. See Mahoney v. Lewis, 1 9 ~

A.D.2d 734 (3rd Dep t 1993). First, the record establishes that petitioner s business carry

-9- .

.,

·

,

}



Admin. Code § 303(a)(9). Third, ·with' l i e n s ~ s the licensee's primary residency must

be in New York Cily, and the licensee cannot have any prior revokedlicenses. See 38 RCNY §

5-02(g). The License Division may revoke a holders permit or license at any t4ne for failing to

satisfy any one of these requirements. See 38 RCNy § 5-21 - 5-22 and 10 NYC Admin .Code § ·

303(g).

Petitioner does not have the good moral character required to possess a firearm

license or permit. The License Division has broad discretion to determine who is fit to possess a

firearm. See Penal Law 400.00(1). See also, Brescia v. McGuire, 509 F. Supp. 243, 246-47

(S.D.N .Y. 1981) ( New Yo rk State's strong public policy is to restrict the possession of

handguns by imposing mandatory penal sanctions . . . and authorizing broad discretion in

licensing and revocation procedures. ) (internal citations omitted); Lipton v. Ward, 116 A D 2d

474 (1st Dep t 1986); Matter of St. Oharra v. Colucci, 67 A.D .2d 1104 (4th Dep t 1979); Harris

v. Codd, 57 A._D.2d 778, 779 (1st Dep t 1977) ( [T]he welfare and safety ofthe general public is

a factor of great weight in issuance of a pistol permit.' '), affd, 44 N.Y.2d9 8

(1978); Greenberg

·v. Bratton, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 30, 1996, at 25 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).

In this case, it is documented and uncontested that petitioner conspired against

and deceived the License Division for many years. When petitioner sought to renew i n e s s

·carry handgun l i ~ ~ ~ e il}· l997, peti Qner suomitted a l e t t f r ~ m : a n'end tllat s t ~ t e d _ l } e t i c l b r i ~ r -leased office space from him. See Exhibit L. In 2005, a routine field-investigation revealed that

the office space was just a mail drop. See id. As a result, the License Division revoked·

petitioner's business carry handgun license. id. Based on the d e ~ e i t petitioner exhibited

with his business carry handgun license, H.O. Shields rationally concluded that petitioner lacked

the adequate moral character to possess a premises-residence handgun license and a rifle/shotgun

-8-

·,..:i



... . ... . ______________ _ _

handgun license was revoked in 2005. See Exhibit L Second, peti tioner failed to prove his

domicile was in New York City. In an administrative hearing, the burden of proof is on the

licensee. See 45 NYC Charter § 1046(c)(2); Zolzer v. NYS Comotroller, 196 A.D.2d 934, 601

Dep t 1993).

There is no evidence from a neutral third-party that petitioner primarily resides .n

New York City. ·When asked for identification, petitioner gave the License Division a Texas, not

a New York State, driver s license. See Exhibi t A. By law, an out of state person who moves to

New York State must apply for a New York State driver s license within thirty days and

surrender his or her o u ~ of state license. See Exhibit Q. Petitioner has bad a Texas driver s

license since 1984, and New York State s DMV has no record of petitioner ever applying for a

New York State driver s license. See Exhibits A and R. The DMV only has a record of

Petitioner applying for a Non-Driver identification card a few months before trying to retrieve

his firea1ms. See Exhibit Q. There are two .noteworthy facts about this ID. First, petitioner

waited until 2007 to acquire it, which undermines his allegation that he has primarily resided in

New York Ci ty for over fo rty years. S.ee Verified Peti tion, 20. Second, the address on the

card is not petitioner s residence but a P.O. box. See id.

Seeking proqf that p ~ t i t i o e r s p r m ~ y resid,ed in New York City, Investig<;ttor

3 f . 0 ~ n ~ a r c l i : . : : i i \ ~ ~ ~ i ~ b ~ e g s t v o : ~ ;ui i l i ~ C I i ~ ~ i n ~ e s t i g a t < f i ·Br.d wn·

discovered that petit ioner was not registered to vote in the City or in Texas. See Exhibit R.

Investigator Brown also asked petitioner to produce bills that coUld confmn he

resided at the alleged address. Petitioner was unable to produce either an electric or gas bilL

Petitioner claimed that he .did not pay for gas or electric. See Exhibit A When asked to produce

a lease, petitioner conveniently stated that he also did not have one. See id. Petitioner did

-10-

:

c

;



. .

produce New·York State and ~ i t y tax reco_ds. However, these records also list a P.O. box as his

address and not petitioner' s alleged residence. See Exhibit U.

Petitioner argues that the testimony of his building s super and a letter from the

building s owner prove his alleged domicile. See Verified Petition, a t ~ l6. The .credibility of

w i t n ~ s s e s ·that testify in an .administrative bearing is the sole province of the hearing officer. See

Remmers v. DeBuono, 241 A:D.2d 587, 588_ 3rd Dep't 1997). In reviewing the hearing officer's

decision, a court must defer to the offi.cer s assessmept of the evidence and the credibility of

witnesses. See Sewell v. New York, 182 AD.2d 469,473 (1st Dep't 1992).

Here, H.O. Shields found ·that both the super's testimony aild the letter fi·om the

building owner were not credible. Regarding the super, H.O. Shields found that the super was

less than forthcoming with information ~ b o u t petitioner, gave coll.flicting answers, and expressed

a clear bias. The following conversation, which took place .during the administrative hearing,

demonstrates the super s reluctance to cooperate·with the License Division' s investigation.

ATIORNEY: Basically do you remember whatthey [Police Officer Levine and her partner] asked?

MR MINKOWICZ: They ask me, they ask me if I

see him often.

ATTORNEY:.And w s yqur answer?

~ d W r ~ z ·i· ~ k w ~ t r i i e i f f i s ofteiL'· ' , l, :. • 1 • • • • • . •

. .

ATIORNEY: Okay. And what, ,what did you tellthem?

MR. MINKOWICZ:.Ah I tell .t ?.em that I see him,

that I see him, not so often, it is not so often every

day. I didn t know what to answer, basically. . .. ·

HEARJNG OFFICER: Why don t you answer the

question right now, how often do you ·see Mr.Romborn1

-1 ).-

:·

f;I

L

i

;\

r.

.· ·

· ·

1

l(



·-· -···-·-----·· . · ·

9. The licensee-testified that he had asked Goldberg & Lustig, Esqs. to provide· a letter to

the License Division confirming their business arrangement, however,.they refused. At the

present time they want him out of their office because they do not want visits from the police.

The business arrar1gement he previously had with them is no. onger viable.

10. The Licensee further testified that he maintains a fully equipped office at

._. His subsidiary corporation, Palltech, an onlineservice providing se s to

enforcement and investigative agencies is located there. He. has had the· ue

office since 1991. He submitted into evidence the first page of a lease r o ~Management Company as landlord, to Pallorium, Inc., as tenant, for the basement ·

commercial space located at from September 19,1991 to September 30, 1996. 1 , Inc. dated ·November 1, 2004 paid to PHM Managemenlfor a lease term ending October 31, 2013.

11. He did not want to have the address of this company publicly available because

computers are located there and he is concerned about security. He has no employees

working at this site and he subcontracts.the programming work to another company. He·doesn t go to this office more·than once or twice a month. However, he feels that this

· location would meet the criteria of his Business Carry license and requested that the License

·Division conduct a field visit here. At the time he initially applied for his Business Canj

license, he was under the impression that the business location given to the License Divisionhad to be the same location that was on his New York Sta.te Private Investigator's license.

This license was under 188 Montague Street and that is wily he·continued io use this

address at the License Division.

12. Until this.incident.occurred he was not aware that it.was a condition of his license to

actually have an office where he meets with clients and have his business name on the door.

His business is international in scope a·nd does not require an office in the traditional sense.He is on the road or out of the United States much of the time and a large portion of his

business is conducted over the Internet. He can be contacted with a phone number that

reaches him wherever he is located. He currently has Business Carry pistol licenses in

appmximately six states.

13. :rne Licensee b M j t t ~ ~ ' / b , t g ' A , y } < J ' ~ m 9 ~ : . D , ? . ~ # : s 0 · , \ J . ~ ' P r . ~ , s p ~ p e r ? , i i i c o e s ; r ~ , 9 i H ? . ~ s i ; , ~ ~ - ~ ~ · $ j } : ' e : _ . .has 1nvest1gated. -Fie also subm1ttea ·threatenrng electromc mail that he has rece1ved on h1s ·computer and testified thal.he has also received threats oyer the telephone. He was asked if

he has any complaint reports filed with the New York City "Police Department regarding these

threats. He testified that the last report that he filed with the police was in Detroit about four

years ago. He has not filed any reports in New York since the 1990's around the time that he

reloca·ted h is office to its' current location. Many of the threats made come from· out of state. and he was advised to contact the Secret Service. He further testified that because of thenature of his work and the types of cases he investigates he continues to be very concerned

for his personal safety.

3



... ·· ···· ·· · '··· . ----··· ..... . . ... ----···--·-·-·--·-.... . -. ··-·-·- · · ····--····----- _ _

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

14. The ·rules for the possession of pistol licenses are found in Title 38 of the Rules of theCity of New York and licensees must become thoroughly familiar with them. [38 RCNY. §§5-07(d), 5-33] . .

15. AI incidents are reviewed and evaluated· by the License Division and if.necessary it maysuspend or revoke a license. [38 RCNY §5-30( e)] Even the dism_issal of criminal.chargesdoes not preclude the review of the underlying facts during the administrative action andcould serve to support a license revocation. In Re Zalmanov.v. Bratton, 240 A.D.2d 173, 657

N.Y.S.2d 691 (First Dept. 1997) and Matter of St. Oharra v. Colucci, 67 AD.2d 1104, 415N . Y . S . ~ d 142. Given the questions regarding the authenticity of Pallorium Inc.'s New YorkCity business address, 188 Montague Street, the License Division properly cancelled the ·Licensee's Carry Business pistol license. ·

16. The Licensee held a Carry. Business pistollic.ense. This is an unrestricted form of· handgun license that permits the carrying of a oncealed handgl]n anywhere in the City of

New York an·d at anytime. [38 RCNY § 5-01(b)] An applicant for any pistol license must

satisfy all. of the requirements in Section§ 5-02 of the Rules of the City of New York. Under38 RCNY § 5-02 (g) one of he requirements in the issuance of a pistol license is that theapplicant resides or maintains a principal place cif business within the confines of i' lew York

· City. Satisfying the criteria of 38 RCNY § 5-02 (g) is the first prerequisite·that has to be·· fulfilled in order. to be eligible for a pistol license.

17. An applicant seeking a Carry or Special handgun [cerise also has to demonstrate

"Proper Cause" pursuant to Penal Law 400.00 (2) (f) of the.New York State Pehal Law.''Proper Cause " is determined by a review of all relevant information bearing on the claimedneed of the applicant for the ·license. For example, exposure of the applicant by reason of

employment or business necessity to extraordinary personal danger that requires ·

authorization to carry a han.dgun. (38 RCNY § 5-03)

18 Before a license is issued'or renewed, there shall be an investigation of all statements

required in the application by the duly constituted police authorities of the locality where such·application s made [Penal Law 400.00 (4)]

.

19..ThE f * j ~ ' i H * p ~ s t ~ K s ? 9 c J p p 1 ~ p : . b y s:e'fQ.¥ant ·F)und · . · · r ~ y ~ · a , r ~ d , t h a , ( t h ~ · ~ . d ~ · r , ~ ~ ~ : ~ j y e l : \ by)the Licensee, 188 Montague Street, Brooklyn, NY; Suite 500 was. the Iavi firm of Goldberg &

Lustig. The Licensee's name or business, Pallorium, Inc. was not listed on the building.

directory in the lobbY: Sergeant Rund conducted a telephone interview with Mr. Lustig. Hewas informed that there are no office facilities used by the Licensee at his office. He allows ·the Licensee to have mail forwarded to his office and the Licensee.picks up his mail ons;e or

twice.a month. · · ·

20. Mr. L·ustig's statements to Sergeant Rundcontradict the letters he wrote in 1992 and1997 to the License Division on behalf of the t:.icensee. The Licensee alsci been registeringhis Private Investigators lic.ense to fv1r Lustig's office and has continued to do· so for anumber.. of years. Although the Licensee produced a $250.00 check for rent covering theyear 1991 : 1992 payable to Goldberg & Lustig, he was unable to produce any other

financial documentation or any documents to substantiate any work forkind relationship that

4

.. - _, ____________ :

-

_.

A-·-

<

.

; :.•

...

'

..



·· ··--·--· - ... ~

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CITY OF N W YORK

License Division

-------------------------------------------·---------------- -·-------------- XIn the Matter of the Application of

STEVEN P. ROMBOM

License CB 361767 .

PR 100039747

For a hearing nd determinati<?n pursuant to Title.. 38,

Chapters 5 and 15 of the Rules of the City of New York:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Hearing 0020/05

Tape 59 Side A

The Licensees timely sought an administrative hearing to appeal the License Division'sAugust 1. 2005 decision canceling his Carry Business pistol license . ·

. .

A hearing ~ a s held on August 17 2005 before Hearing Officer Ar lynne Lowe ll , Esq . Steven

P. Rombom appeared and waived co unsel. Se rgeant Lloyd Rund testified on behalf of the

License Division's Incident Section.

Having con sidered the te stimony, th e investigative file and.all proo fs , the undersigned

makes th e follow ing findings of fact and conclus ions of law .

FINDINGS OF FACT

1 . Steven Rombom was issued a Ca rry B usiness pistol license on or about 1992 . He also

holds a Premises Residence pistol license (PR 100039747 wh ich is sti ll active.

2. The Licensee subm itted a letter with his 2004 - 2007 Business Carry Renewa l applica tion

that he had previously submitted to the License Division in 1997 . The letter was date d

~ c e 23, 1Q97 written on tbe law firm stationc;uy of .Go oberg & ·L.ust g .aJ1Q s i g n ~ q ..b.Y

. H ~ r r o / . > ~ ; { : t h ~ t t f ~ Lioen·see c o n t l f l t J ~ s ..to s q ~ ~ ~ s ~ c e space m ~ ~ m ..10cated at.:18frMoritague s treet, ·Brooklyn, New York, and thafthere' are no separate·· utility

· bills paid by Steven Rombom ·or Pallorium, Inc., because a ll are include.d in th e leasing cost .

In add ition the Licensee submitted·a bank statement from Bank of America addressed to·

Pallor ium Inc. PO Box 460, Bro oklyn, NY

3. Sergeant Rund testified that on March 10 2005 he conducted a Field Inspect ion to verifythe add ress that the Licensee listed for his business on his 2004 -2007 B·usiness Carry

Renewal application 188 Montague Street Brooklyn, NY Suite 500 . When he arrived at this

location h·e found that it was the law fi rm of Go ldber & Lustig. The Licensee's name or

business, Pallori um. Inc., was not listed on the building directory i n the lobby. He wen t to

Suite 500 and spoke to Mr . Go ldberg, one of the partners. Mr . Go ldberg became a nnoyed

_and did not want to voluntee r any infarmation about the Licensee pertaining to any

arrangements he might have in his office . He referred all inquiries to his partner H arvey

Lu stig. ·

·'•.

·

ii:

. I

,.

;

:

.

:



16. The licensee testified that his full name is Steven Paul Rombom and he lives at

. He runs a private investigation agency, Pallorium Inc.

licensed in the _ ork: The licensee testified that he has been_ private t i g a t ~ rsince the early 1980s and bas had his own license since ca. 1985. He has had a pistol license and -rifle/shotgun permit for the same period of time. Asked by his counsel where the bulk of hisprivate investigatory business is located, the l i c e n s e ~ said it was overseas, but the majority of hisUS business is in New York. _ -

17. His primary residence for the past 24 years has been at -

where his parents and grandparents had lived before he ''took it over." He has kept hisgrandfather's name, "Wittenberg," on the door. The licensee said that he filed tax returns fromhis - address. He added that Texas has no sta te income tax and he would not have paidsome $17,000 in New York State taxes if he did not have to.

18. The licensee said he has had a Texas residence since approximately 1984 and aTexasdriver's license for the same time period. According to him, eligibility for a Texas driver'slicense requires only a residence in Texas and not necessarily a primary residence. He confirmedthat be is not a registered voter, added that he has not been registered to vote since college.

19. The license insisted that he had immediately notified the -License Division of his 2006arrest, that he was arrested on a Saturday and released on Monday and went immediately to .hislawyer's office. I ca lled the License Division. I was told they needed something in writing."He then sent the letter dated 7-26-06, the.copy of which he provided on 4-11-07.

20. The licensee's witness testified that his name is spe lled M-A-R-I-A-N Minkowitz and he is

the building manager and super He lives in apartment _next to the licensee's has lived in apartment.for more than 20 years. -

21. He remembered the police knocking at his door between 7 and 8am and inquiring ( .bout Mr.

Rombom. The licensee related being asked by the police officers i he saw Mr. Rombom often."I asked.what means often? I see hirn not so often v ~ r y day." He said it.was a difficult -

question; s o ~ e : ~ e ~ a ~ h , ~ ~ ~ ~ Y . ~ r a Q j ~ j , j ~ ¥ ~ ~ ~ 9 . ~ ~ J ~ p e s P <? t ~ ) 1 ~ ~ y y , ~ ~ ~ . · ·:rne i t n e s ~ a p p e a ~ e d re,udaiit. to:m;isy{.er. :hq:W:Ofleri: ie y . e ~ R o ~ b o r i t ~ $ : ~ q o i . 9 : : i : i b t • know how many nights per year the licensee was present in his apartment. When pressed by the ·undersigned hearing officer for ah estimate, he suggested ·it could be_ 0% of the year.

22. He described.being in e icensee's apartment at least twice a year to change batteries, etc.and had personally observed the licensee's fumiture and clothing in the apartment. He alsoadmitted that the FBI had visited in the past and that the i c e n ~ e e had requested he not.give outany information regarding him unless he had to. He admitled that the only question he had beenasked by P.O. Levine that he was reluctant to answer was to explain the name Wittenberg on the

licensee' s door.

5



..• : ~ - - . . · • ' . .. •;· .:.: . .... • ·;· - · : . : . . : . . ·.-...:. ..· .:• . ~ · = ·· ·· .. . . _ _... . •. ....... . _ .. . _ . , ; . . . . : _ ... .:.:....; .. ..··• ....... - ~ - · ·.. _. _

10. On 11-29-07, P.O. Ada u;vine, assigned to the license Division Iflcident Section and ·

accompanied by P.O. Audy Glans, performed a field inspection of the premises located at .

- · She found that the nameof

another individu.al, not the licensee, was .~ p a r t m She interviewed the building superintendent, .whom she

identified as Marion Minkowicz. Mr. Minkowicz identified a photograph of licensee Steven

Rombom and informed her that Mr. Rombom has lived there for many years, but that he is often

away. He said he believes this is due to Mr. Rombom 's work as a private investigator. When

Levine asked when was the last time he saw the licensee, Mr. Minkowicz said he saw him a few

.weeks ago." The super explained that the name listed in the building is that of a former tenant,

which Mr Rombom had not cared to change. Levine was infonned by an employee at the

landlord's office, Selective Realty, that the licensee had succeeded his 'uncle to the tenancy of

this rent-controlled apartment.

11. Inv·estigator Brown learned that the Rifle/Shotgim Section had not opened an incident

investigation in the within matter because their computer query showed that Mr. Rombom'srifle/shotgun permit had already been cancelled, on both 3-24-05 and again on 7-26-06. Brown's

. subsequent check in the ALPS system showed that the licensee's pistol license was also

cancelled on 3-24-05 pursuant to a field inspection conducted on 3-10-05 by Sgt. Rund,

supervisor of the Carry Guard Section. She' also noted that the licensee's premises penn.it was

.active, having been issued on 5-31-05 . Brown's investigatory rep01t notes b ~ t she was unable to

locate the licensee's folder, and was therefore un aware ofthe licensee's permit history

.12. The investigator closed the case on 8-02-07 recommending cance11ation ofRombom's

licenses due to "all the di screpancies surrounding the case" and her belief that the licensee's

primary residence was in Texas. By notice of determination dated 8-31-07, the commandingofficer cancelled the. icensee's premises-residence handgun license "af ter a review of the facts

and circumstances surrounding your incident."4

13. By letter dated 9-24-07 th e licensee made a timely request for an administrative hearing to

appeal that determination. By letter dated 10-04-07, the licensee was informed that the hearing

was scheduled for 11-19-07. A Notice of appearance dated 10-23-07 was received from Robert

Race, Esq., who requested an adjourn date. The matter w a i ~ ~ j o u r n e d OJ consent to 12-19-07.

l L . Priort.o the :v :ithin beari Ig, I:J;earing O f f i c ~ r A f l ~ ~ L 9 y . . : ~ l l , ~ q t i c ¢ g S J e v e n ~ o J ? ~ < ? m s .: a ~ e ·an the heiu:ings·calendar, infbrnit:d ttie undersfgned' e a r i i i g ~ f f i c e ~ that Mr:·Romb6mJia.ct

appeared: before her in a 2005 hearing. She provided a copy of her hearing decision, h i c ~ wasmade a part of the licensee's file.

15. lso prior to the 'vithin bearing, licensee's counsel, Robert Race Esq., carne into the

License Divisio]f and reviewed the licensee's file, which included the.2005 hearing report issued

by Hearing Officer Lowell. Mr. Race was informed that the licensee's prior folder couJd not belocated.

3In an apparent typographi cal error, Levine 's case notes identify the apartment in question as J rather than • .

4As previously noted, this determination should have included both the licensee's handgun license and hi s rifle/

shotgun permit.

4

- - · · · - : ~ ·

.

··

t·

j·



active PR/PE. Licensee stated that he wiJ corpe in on April3, 2007 to present his

. disposition. Licensee did not notify the Lie. Div. of his incident

·Investigator Brewster noted under comments that the licensee did not show up on April 3rd_

3. The licensee came into the License Division on 4-11-07 and presented these documents to

Investigator Brewster:

· • Driver's license issued of Public Safety to Steven Paul

•••

•

(photocopied for the file)

Letter [original] from licensee to the License Division dated 4-4-07

Copy of letter from licensee to License Division dated 7-26-06

Copy of Property Clerk's Invoice N285841 showing voucher of the licensee's 3 licensed

handguns at the 70

Precinct on 7-26-06

Copy of Property Clerk's Invoice N285898 showing voucher of 3 longarms at the 701h

Precinct on 7-28-06

4. In the letter dated 4-04-07; hand-delivered by the licensee on 4-11-07, the licensee identifies

himself as a private investigator and director of a licensed investigative agency He explains that

he was falsely accused of identifying himself as an FBI agent to rela.tives of the subject of his

inves tigation . The licensee was arrested on 7-22-06 by federal agents in New York City and

charged with obstruction of ustice; these charges were dismissed in SDNY. Identical charges

were then brought in federal court in Los Angeles; these were also dismissed. The letter further

states:On 24 July 2006, per NYC regulations, in the presence of my attorney, I

telephoned the NYPD License Section and advised of my arrest. On 26 July 2006

I also proviped a t t e n recap by letter to the NYPD. (Please see copy, attached.)

I also, as required, vouchered (Voucher Nos. N285841 and N285898) at my local

precinct all weapons in my possession in New York. . . .I am therefore requesting the return of all firearms which I vouchered with the

N.Y.P.D. at the earliest possible opportunity and the reinstatement of my firearms

permits (if they have been suspended).

5. The attached :copy of the letter dated 7-26-06 reads in pertinent part:

Pistol Ueense Section

~ ~ l l ¢ . ~ ~ ~ P . k r l ~ ~ + . ~ , .:. \ : ,- ··,. .. . . · . . . . . ..l i e P . i S i b l : i c e n s e N o lqoo39742},ntttc ·Shotgun Peiinii No. uoo6429502

Dear Sirs:

To recap my call to your office of Monday last, I have been charged by the

U.S. Attorney' s Office in the Southern District ofNew York (S.D.N. Y.)

Nevertheless, as I have been charged with a crime I am notifying your office,as req.uired.

I will of course be vouchering my firea rms at my local police precinct, and w ill

advise further after all charges have been dropped.

Please advise as to what other action I may be required to take at this time.

You may contact me, or my attorney, Mr. Todd Terry (tel. 212-809-4500).

2



6. By notice dated 4-23-07, the licensee was informed that his pistol license and trifle/shotgun]

permit2

were suspended pending investigation of his incident. The notice directed him to

immediately :

voucher any and all firearms at hi s local precinct;• forward his license and a copy of the Property Clerk s Invoice showing surrender of the

firearms to the License Division;

• provide a notarized letter to the License Division explaining the facts and circumstancesof the incident; ·

• telephone and speak with Investigator Brown; and,

• if arrested, provide a court certificate of disposition and (if applicable) a certificate of

relief from disabilities.

7. Investigator Brown s .DMV query showed that the licensee does not have a New York State

driver s license. He applied on 0 1-31-07 for a New York State non-driver s ID which was

issued to hi ; his expires on 2 17-15. He

has possessed a smce 1 and did not surrender a New York driver s

license to the ~ authorities. The record further shows that two longarms, possibly assault

weapons, were transferred by the licensee on 5-29-92 to his residence in Medina, Texas, and one

assault weapon was so ld on that date to a licensed dealer. No voter s registration was found for

the licensee in either New York or Texas.

8. Brown .had requested the licensee to provide proof of his residence in NYC after he informed

her that he maintains a home and a business office in Texas. The licensee informed her that he

1ves a rent-controlled apartment in- does not have a lease, and does not pay

separately for electricity or gas for this apartment.

9. In response to receipt of the suspension notice, the licensee wrote to Brown on 5-4-07,reiterating the statements in his 4-04-07 letter and providing copies of documents be hand

delivered on 4-11-0 7. He also provided documentation that the federal charges against him bad ·

been dismissed in federal court in New York on 8-7-06 and in Los Angeles federal

court (CDC) on 10-13-06. As proof of h. residence, he enclosed a Jetter signed

Steven Williams as Managing Agent

· _ · · ~ y L s 7 2 oMay 1 2007 ·

To whom it may c o n cRambam) is a tenant at

He is a rent-controlled tenant and consequently has no lease.

2 Although the notice stales t h ~ t both the pistol license and permit were suspend ed, the caption of this notice

erroneously lists only the premises-residence license number, listing it an SX100039747. The permit number is

PR100039747.

3

i

.

;·iiL

:}·.



30. The hearing was adjourned to January 15, 2008 to allow the licensee to provide copies of

his federal' and. state tax returns for the past 3 years. On 1-15-08 copies of the licensee's New

York stale and federal tax returns for the years 2004-6 were received by the undersigned hearing

officer. These show that the licensee filed U:S. Individual Income Tax Returns and New York

Residence Income Tax Returns. for the calendar 2005 and 2006, listing the taxpayer'saddress as:

CONCLUSIONS OF L v

1 The terms and conditions of issuance of pistol permits require that a licensee immediately

notify the License Division's Incident Section whenever he is arr.ested; (3 8 RCNY § S-30[c])

This.recjuirement is printed in capital letters on the back of the licensee's permit. The record

before me shows no notification made by the licensee. In testimony in the within hearing, the

licensee insisted that he had informed the License Division at the time of his 2006 arrests,

although he did noi pro,;,ide the name of any individual \vith. whom he spoke on 7-24-06, and tlie

copy of the Jetter dated 7-26-06 he produced is neither addressed to any individual's attention, .nor does the content indicate to whom he spoke[ to recap my call to your office of Monday

last "] I find it surprising that a professional investigator would not have obtained the name

of lhe person to whom he spoke, and referenced it in his confirmation letter. The undersigned

hearing officer takes administrative notice that such notification-if received by. the Incident

Section-should have triggered the licensee's being made an "incident" and the automatic

suspension of his permits pending investigation of the incident; the licensee would also have

been advised to immediately surrender his firearms and his.firearrns permits. The licensee's

permits were not surrendered· until 4-04-07, and no explanation was provided for the ljccnsee

vouchering only his handguns on 7-26-06 and his longarms two days later. I note that the

licensee's folder, which might have resolved whether the telephone call and follow-up Jetter

were received by the Incident Section, cannot be located. I also note that the licensee's

rifle/shotgun permit [and possibly his premises handgun permit] was cancelled in ALPS on 7-26- .

06, which suggests tl1at someone in the License Division was aware of the license's arrest. For

all of these reasons. and in fairness to the licensee, I decline to find that he failed to notify the

License Division of his ·arrest in violation of§ 5-30[cJ.:

· 2f : o f p ; ~ j ~ 4 6 i § . O : t 1 n t ~ J [ i l . i 3 ; P . i J x i < ~ ~ : i ~ ~ f \ i ~ i ~ t ' § ; ~ ~ # i £ ~ i p ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ i i , § . I f : l i ~ ~ : ~ p P 1 . f f i . ~ i ·, ldtion in· :ra« ttffli6at'Cils6a'?:i:t·e·aVa:;Fat e· to'an st'ii 6 or c i C i i i c m c l i f i i i s : i i t e r \ ~ i h i ' a l i t l i b r i i . ' J :vihenthe ·

accused has macte application for a license to possess fireamis.· Regin'dless ofthedisposition of

the criminal charges, the Police Department is entitled to consider the ci\cumstances surrounding

that arrest in order to dekrmine his eligibility for a pistol permit. (Matter of Abramowitz v. ·

Safir, 293 A.D.2d 352,353 [1'' Dept. 2002]; Theurer v. Safir, 254 A.D.2d 89, 90 [l't Dept.

1998J; Matter of Zalrnanov v. Bratton, ·240 A.D.2d 173, 657 N.Y.S.2d 691 [1 Dept. 1997]) I doso now. The record before me contains no evidence that the licensee committed the offenses for

which he was arrested, both in New York and California. For this reason, I consider that the

dismissals speak for themselves.

3. In order to possess a premises. permit, the l icensee is required to .reside or have a principal

place· of business within the confines of New York City. (38 RCNY § 5-02(g]) In an

7



•

Hearing Re2ort from the Licensee's Prior License Division Hearing

23. The record shows that an ad ministrative hearinrr was held on· 8-17-05 before Hcarinrr0

Officer Arlynne Lowell, Esq., appealing the commandino officer's deterinination of 8-1-05• . . 0 '

. which cancelled his Carry Business handgun license. HO Lowell noted that the licensee alsopossessed a premises-residence penn it which was still active. No mention was made of the.licensee's Rifle/Shotgun permit.

24. According to Hearing Officer Lowell 's findings, the licensee submitted a etter of necessity

with his 2 0 0 4 ~ 2 0 0 7 Business Carry permit renewal application. Accompanying this was a letterdated 12-23-97, written on the letterhead of the law firm of Goldberg Lustig· and:signed byHarry Lustig, stating that Steven Rombom s firm Pallorium continues to sublease office space

' from their firm at 188 Montague Street, Brooklyn. The subtenant did not pay separate utilitybills. The licensee also provided a banking statement from Bank of America addressed toPalloriurn Inc., PO Box 460 Brooklyn, NY

. 25. A field inspection conducted by Sgt. Lloyd Rund on 3-10-05 found no evidence of thepresence of Pallorium at 188 Montague St, suite 500, which housed the law firm of Goldberg

·Lustig. Sgt. Rund interviewed one of the partners, Mr. Goldberg, who refused to discuss thelicensee and referred inquiries to his partner; Mr. Lustig.

26. Rund interviewed lvlr. Lustig by telephone and was informed that Mr. Rombom had no

pem1anent office, 'desk, dedicated telephone line, fax, computer or any other indicia of a

·permanent office within Suite 500. Lustig explained that he and Rornbom have been friends for

approx 15 years and he allowed the licensee to have mail forwarded to his office. He stated thatthe ·licensee visits his office once or maybe twice a month to pick up his maiL ·

27. Hearing Officer Lowell found that lvlr Lust ig's statements to SgL Rund contradicted the

letters that the lawyer had written to the License Division in 1992 arid 1997 on behalf of thelicensee. The licensee was unable to produce any proof of rent paid other than a $250 check for1991-92 rent. Lowcll.concluded that there was no evidence that the licensee maintained his

business at 188 Montague Street, Suite 500, other than using the address to maintain his private

i n y e s t i J S . ' \ ~ p r / s · \ S ~ ~ ~ ~ } p } l ' ~ : , Y X o J ; ~ , pif.t e}r.ci ¥ ~ . < : ; ~ I } < } ¥ ; ~ ~ ~ l l ' l f . : ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ; Sg >•

• e c o , r § f ~ ~ 3 s ~ ~ t l i ~ ' 1 : 1 ; ' l f p « i J P J i ~ 8 ¥ ) ~ \ R g i ~ ~ x ~ s , : c t e t > t . f f i l j w J i g _ ~ , ) l ~ : ~ , U , ~ t , l ~ f 4 1 · 1 l i ~ ~ i M \ + \ ~ k · · · A : • •. · •;:••.···: · ..Deteciriilia:tidri, s s u e d • b . Y L i c e n s e · D i v i s i . o : r l ' D i r e c i ( i r . : f h d i r i a s m t a s s o i o n · 1 2 ~ 0 9 0 5 ~ • e o n b i r r e d . \ , ; i t hthe hearing officet's r e c o m m e ~ d a t i o n ; nbting that l i c ~ n s c c ' s business address is nothing morethan a mail drop. The Director added, Based upon the evidence adduced during the hearing, itappears that the. licensee does very little business in New York C]ty.

28. A copy of the hearing report written·by Hearing Officer Lowells

annexed hereto.

29. Although the hearing report, and presumably the Final Agency Determination mailed to the·licensee, stated that the licensee's carry business handgun license was cancelled, il appears that.the licensee's other permits were also cancelled ill the License Division computer system.

6

i. ,.I'

,.;



: : ~ : . : . . : . t . · t : ~ \ : - : · : : - . . : : t " ~ : : . : . : · : . : . ~ : . : : . •...• · :•: · _ , ~ : ~ · : : ; . : ~ . ~ H:r: . ~ i . : : ; : - 1 : ~ ; - ' : · . - · •,:. :: . : ; . . : t ~ i ' . ~ - - ) · : : ~ , ; : = ~ . : : - : ; ; x . " . i : : : . . : : . : . : ~ •- ~ : . : . : : t . : . : ' : ; . : ; . : " i . . . . ~ . ~ . : . : : i · 1 ~ ~ ~ · . : . . ; .• ~ - . : . . t ~ o ~ = ; ; r ... . . : . . . : : : ~ ; - ; : .: ::.·:. ; - : ; : ~ ; , - . : : - o i ,, ;i ::.- - . . c . ~ • : . : : : ~ ; : : _ o :r:

. '

' .

The licensee, by his conduct,.has demonstrated that he lacks the good moral characterrequired for possession of a fuearms permit. .

7. It is unclear why the licensee s three permits were not revoked by the earlier determinationon 8-1-05, when the licensee s deception about the location f h i s business fust came to light.

This omission appears to due to office error. t is possible that the intent was to cancel all of

the licensee s pennits, because at least two .ifno all, ofthc licensee s 3 permits were cancelledin the License Division s computer system in 2005. However, it is well settled that the LicenseDivisiqn has discretion to correct past errors. (Caruso v. Ward, 143 Misc. 2d 5 [Sup. o;NY,

1989] affd 160 A.D.2d 540 1st Dept. 1990] lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 705 [1990]) The licensee s

remaining permits should be revoked now. ·

8. The Police Commissioner is authorized to revoke or suspend a permit for good cause. (Penal

Law§ 400.00 [11]; Harris v. Codd, 394 N.Y.S.2d 210, 57 A.D.2d 78 1 51 Dept. 1977] affd 408

N.Y.S.2d 501, 44 N.Y.2d 978); Sewell v. City of New York, supra, at 472) For the reasonsstated above, I find that sufficient good cause exists to revoke the licensee s permits.

HEARING OFFICER S RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended thatthe P r e m i s e s R e s i ~ e n c e handgun and Rifle/Shotgun permit of STEVEN ROMBOM beREVOKED.

Date: July 28, 2008

FINAL AGENCY DETERMINATION

.. : · .

Date:

9

Margaret L. Shields, Esq.Hearing Officer

Thomas M. PrassoDirector

.

I

'irI



administrative hearing, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Matter of Zolzer v. NYSComptroller, 196 A.D.2d 934, 601 N Y S2d 979 [3d Dept 1993]; City Administrative Procedure

Acl [CAP-A 5 NYC Charter § 1046[c][2]) I am not convinced·that the licensee actuallyresides in The licensee bas provided no documentary proof of residence, other than aletter from the m ing's managing agent. The landlord's letter does not confl ffi that the

e n s e does not pay for gas and electricity in his apartment; no telephone bills were produced.The licensee has a New York State o n - d r i v e r lD which gives his address as a PO Box andwhich.he obtained on or about January 2007. The licensee's tax returns show his address as a

- pos t office box. .

4. The building super, whose apartment is next to the 1icensce 's and who could be expected to

know exactly how often the licensee is physically inside the premises, has told a LicenseDivision investigator that he had last seen the licensee a few weeks ago." In testimony hereinhe contradicted what he had previously told PO Levine and attempted to characterize the

discrepancy as following the licensee's r_quest to give law enforcement personnel as littleinformation about himself as possible. Because this witness was reluctant to tell the undersignedhearing officer how much time the licensee spends i.n his - apartment, I find his eventual

answer, 60%, not credjble. The licensee admitted that ~ i s business is done 9verseas.I note that in 2005 Harvey Lustig, Esq., who had abetted the licensee over a period of years in hisattempts to deceive the License Division about Pallorium 's business address, informed Sgt. Rund

that the licensee picked up his mail there once or twice a month. Additionally, the fact that thelicensee lied to the License Division over a perioq of years about his business address does notinspire belief in the licensee's claims tw o years later about l:lls residence address. I reject thelicensee's argument that be would not pay New York State resident taxes unless he actually livedwithin New York, considering that $17,000 and the price of a rent-controlled apartment is asmall price to pay for a New York City ''presence." For the reasons stated above, I find thelicensee's testimony regarding his residence not credible and conclude that the he maintains hisrent-controlled apartment in- as a pied-a-terre,but this is not ·his primary residence.

5. Finally, the evidence adduced at the License Division hearing conducted on 8-17-05 is thatthis licensee conspired with another individual, an attorney, to deceive the License Division overa period of years that he maintained a principal place of business within New York City, when in

f f l c ~ Pis. u s i n e ~ f i a c i d ; r e ~ s y.zas w ~ r ~ l y ~ ~ ~ <:Irpg, Jbis : P . f < : ? O . f p e r se that be lacks the e s s ~ n t i ~ lg oa-inorai charaCter t ~ q ~ i i e ~ £ P i 4 i t 9 ~ s ~ r s i o ~ n ) t a f i ~ ~ i l - i l $ p e ~ 1 t : · ..I • ,. J ; ' ;,, ; •>. • • • • ; ' · _. : ~ · · , .. : . t . ~ ~ / l . ~ ; ) ( . •·-:.· . :· \ • , • : ; •

6.. The protection of the welfare and safety of the general public is a factor of gn:;at weight in theissuance of a pistol permit. (Harris v. Codd, supra; Iacono v. Police Dept. of the City of New

York, 204 A.D.2d 25, 26, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 848) Indeed, the Court has noted in Matter ofLipton v. Ward, 116 A.D.2d 474 [ls1 Defl . 1988]; See a l ~ o Matter ofPelose v. County CL of

Westchester County, 53 A.D.2d 645 [2" Dept 1976]:. . . the t a t ~ has a substantial and legitimate interest and indeed, a·graveresponsibility, in insuring the safety of the·general public from individuals who,by their conduct, have shown themselves to be lacking the-essential temperament

or a r a c which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerousinstrument.

8

·•

''.

I:

j

·

··i"



:. ... .: . ........ ... t · . ; ..-. ,.,·:- ...... ; ... :.:.; ..·. ;.: .. . : : ..----'--- ._ ......... - ----:- •- .. ---- '-····· . ---_ .. ______ .___ ..... - --- .. -

he may have had with the iaw firm .

21. The on ly inference that can be made from the documentaHon presented is that after1997, the re is no evidence that Pallorium, Inc. maintained a business at 188 Montague

Street, Suite 5'00 other than using it to maintain the Licensee's Private Investigator's license

in New York State and Carry Bu siness license n New York City. There is also a· strong lposs ibility the 1997 letter Mr . Lustig wrote to the License Division on behalf of the Lice nsee

~ did not rea lly e c ~ the .reality of their business arrangement. . ·,

22. The Licensee testified that Pallorium , Inc. does not utilize an office in the traditional

sense. All investigations take place in the field and client contact is made over the Internet or

at th e client's location. The Licens-ee's business .structure does not mandate a separate fullservice office . However, pursuant to 38 RCNY § 5-02 (g) it is the expectation that the

documentation received by the agency be reflective of a functional, legitimate business

organization located in New York C ity not just a mailing address: Licensing of firearms is ahighly reg ulated area. The laws ·governing pistol licenses-require a strong·nexus to New York

City.

23. I find that the office of Pallorium Inc. located .at 188 Montague Street. Brooklyn, NY Suite

500 does not meet the criteria of principal place of business set forth in 38 RCNY § 5-02

(g). The criteria of 38 RCNY § 5-02 (g) has not been satisfied therefore an evaluation

pursuant to Penal Law 400.00 (2) (f) is not mandated in this case. ·

24 . Prior granting of a pistol license does not give a vested right to retain t Application of

Sherwood, 1975, 80 Misc2d 215, 363 N.Y.S.2d 71

25. The issuance of a pistol license is not a right but a privilege subject to reasonable

regulation. The Police Commissioner has broad discretion to decide whether to issue a

license. (Sewe ll v. City of N_ew Yo rk , 182 A.D.2d 469 , 472 [151

Dept. 1992].

26. Th e terms and conditions of issuance of a handgun license provide that it is revocab le at

any time and any.misuse or misconduct o.n the part of the licensee con?tituting just cause will ·

result in the suspension or revocation of the license. [38 RCNY§§5-22{a)( ))&(1.5.)1..... . ·

H : E A R I : N G o F P ~ R s R : E c h M ~ 8 N o : t : o IJ Is f> T bN . ~ ;Based on the foregoing findings of. act and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended

tha t the Business Carry c e n s ~ previously issued to Steven Rombom at 188 Montagu_e

Street, Brook lyn, NY Suite 500 remain cancelled.

Dated: Novembe r 22, 2005

a : ? : r ~ t ~ 1NNE LOWELL. Esq.

Hearing Officer

t>

5

··

• ·

:::

~ ~r

'

..

:

i·'f :



By Hand)

Pistol License SectionN. Y.C. Police Deparb.11ent1 Police Plaza

New York, NY

From The Desk of

STEVEN ROMB C):M

April 4, 2007

RE: Steven P. Rombom

) . ; , d~ ~ > J

(Pistol License 1003 9747; Rifle-Shotgun Pem1it 6429502)

Dear Sirs:

Per your ins tructions, follm·ving is my wr-itten description of the cira.imstancessurrounding my arrest on 22 July 2006 (continued on 04 August 2006) and the

subsequent dismissal of all charges. ·

ram a Private Investigator -and the Director of a licensed Investigative 1-\uPnr:u

2005-2006, my agency ·wa s · retained by a law firm to inves tigate aMy agency's investigation uncovered

t ha t _w e r ~ g t h t ~intervie-vving them. These statements nd were d ea rly made for the sole reason of interfering wi.th my

Nevertheless, based .on the statements ofW 5 Y y ~ i ... ~ c Q ~ p i a h i t ~ g ~ ~ l : m.e :i;n .m e ~ H : : t ; n l .

.use ~ r . ~ w a s a l : t ¢ s ~ e d that Charge

Page (1) of (2)

. :· > · . - C O N F J D E N T I L < , · ~ · .: ···· · .. .

P. 0 BOX 155 • .MIDWOOD. STATION • BROOKLYN, NY •· 11230 USA

l HONE: (001) _21.2-969-0286 • FAX: Om) 212-858-5720 .

.)1:

. -f-3./B

.

'Im

;Im

I

II

"

Ia

1 1

'fi

J

,

.



: : • ··1

. .

InvestigatorS. Brown

NYPD Pistol License Section)

As 1have: .previo1,1sly ad vised your office, I was 11.ever indicted, all charges were quicldydroppe'd and I do not have a11y conviction Jor any critne, F1rrth.er, I an l. not presently

'under arrest or indictmentin any J.urisdiction. My crirninaT record is .absoluteJy.clear.

I am. e r e f o r e requesting the return of firearms which.I vouchered with, the N.Y.P.D.af the earliest possible opportunity and the reinstatement of all firearms permits.

Sincercly, . ?JL ]rJL MAY 2 2 7

.Steven Rombom . .

SWORN10MI SUBSCiiBf.Dg£f RtME

cc: Jack Litman, Esq. (via email)

cc: Todd Terrr- Esq. (via email)

cc: Jeffrey Rutherford, Esq. (via email)

cc: Stanley Lupl<il), Esq. (via e t ~ a i l

. . .. . · . .. r• • •. .

Page (2) of (2)

~OTARY PUBliC-STATE OF NEW YORk

No . 01Al6159<138

Qualified In Kings County

· ·Y Commh•lon E•plro• January 201 1

I f

.·_ · . CONF IDENTJAL : . . _. .

,.:.:



Via Federal Express)

Pistol Licetlse SectionN.Y.C. Police Department

1 Police Plaza, Room 110New York, NY 10038 ·ATTN: ·Investigatot S. Brown

From Tne Desk ot

ST V .A oMl30M

May 4, 2007

RE: Steven P. Rombom

(Pis to1 License 10039747; i f l e ~ S h o t g u n Permit 6429502)

Investigator Brown :

The follo·wing is in response to, and as required by, your letter of 23 April 2007 (copy

attached). ·

n response to Ins tructions 1 and 3 ., this is to confirm .that all firearms p o s s e ~ s e d byme w ithin the st ate of New York were vouchered by me at my local NYPD precinct ·during July, 2006 following my ai.-rest see attached copies of Property Oerk's liwoice5N285898 and N285841).

n response to Instruction 2 , this is to confirm that my pistol license s) and rifle

permit(s) have already been hand-delivered to your office.

n response· to Instruction 4 , please note that the requested explanation was

e v i q ~ t s l y provided to your office. For your convenience, attached please find anotarized copy of that letter.)

Page (1) of 2)

. · · . · · · · CONFIDENTIAL · .· · · .

P. 0 BOX 155 • MIDWOOD STATION • BROOKLYN, NY • 11230 USAPHONE: 001) 212-969-0286 • FAX: 001) 212-858-5720

. •

::

ij

..t



·;;

· I ~..

(NYPD Pistol License Section) ··

On 24 July 2006 per NYC regulations, in the p r e s e n c ~ of my attorney, I telephoned the

NYPD License Section and advised of my arrest On 26 July 2006 I also provided awritten r.ecap by letter to ~ 1\TYPD. (Please see copy, attached.) I also, as required,

vouchereq (Voud1er Nos. N285841 and N285898) at.my local precinct all weapons inmy possession in New York (Please see copies, attached.)

The obstruction of justice charges w e r e dismissed in ·full by the S.D.N.Y. U.S.Attorney's Office three weeks lal:er, on 07 August 2006. I was _ ever indicted for any

crime in NY.

11Le following day, on 08 August 2006, on the identical complaint (and as a replacemen,tof th.e · original charges), I was charged in California C.D :CA. federal court w ithimpersonating a federal agent . Once again, a ll charges against me were dismissed by

the local U.S. A_tomey's Office (on 13 October 2006). Once_ gairi, I was never indicted

Jor any crime.

In summary, I was never indicted, and I do not have any conviction for any erime.

Further, I am not presently w1der- arrest or indictment in any jurisdiction: My criminal

record i.s absolutely clear. ·

I am therefme requesting the return of aU firearn1s \·\Tinch I vouchered with theN. Y.P.D.a t the earliest possible opportunity and the reinstatement of my firearms permits (if

: : : : : ~ b · s L ea - MAY12 2 ~Steven Rombom

cc: Jack Litman, Esq. (via fax)

cc: Todd Terry, Esq. (via email)

cc: Jeffrey Rutherford, ?sq. (via email)

· ~ e y p p ~ ~ E s q (via fax)k • • -

_

·.cci.Q.e ;·

SVIORH 10 llO SUBS£RIUEO BtrORth\E

Page {2} of (2)

NOTARY P UfiliC·STATE f NEW YORK

No. 01AL6159438

Quoll t led in Kings Coun ty

y Commlnlon Explr• • Jon.uary 16 , 2 0 11

. ·· . ·. . · CONFIDENTI L . . : . -. · .

.



Dear Licensee:

POLICE DEPARTJVlENTLicense .D£vision

1 Pol ice Plaza',Room

New York,NY 10038

April 3 m 2007

RE: Liccnsc(s)#: SXl00039747

This letter is to advise yo u that your license and pcrmi,.t ai e u s p c n d c d ;ts a result of

an im•cstigation conducted by tbe LicenseDivision concerning your violating the rules

·and regulations ofLkcnsc Division which occurr-ed on M.arch :i l , Z007.

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO JMMEDIATELY.

I. Surrencler: any and all Firearms at your local precinct pendin_g the

condusion of the investigation oftbe above incident by the License Division.

2. Forward your iiccnsc and/or: permit-to. the License Division at the.above addJess.

3. Forward a copy of the Property Clerk's Invoice showing surrender of the firearms to

the License Division at the above address, ·

4: Forward a notarized letter to the License Division at the above address exp laining the

facts and circumstances surrounding your incident. .

5. Telephone and.speak with the investigator named below who s assigned to your. case.

6. Ifyou were arrested, you must fonvard a certified copy of he Final Certificate of

CoUJ1 Disposition and if applicable, Certificate ofRelief from Disability to the License

Division at the above address. ·

The License Division will conductan

inyestigation into the facts and circumstances of theincident. The Commanding Officer ofthe License Division :will m a k ~ a de termination as to

whether your license, permit and/or special patrolm.in•s designation will be continued, suspended

or revoked based.upon the results of the investigation. You will be notified in writing of the

results of that dctenninatiorr.

'Jfe. y e ~ ~ ~ 1 3 . t ~ r as;:;ignei f to yqqr ·_ca se f ~ y ~ ~ Q g ~ ( ) . S . ~ l ; q , ) ) ; I ~ ; ~ ~ P . cag r ~ ¢ h ¢~ ~ < t ~ ~ § ~ ' s ~ t · · . . · · . , ..:· .· : : : ~ : . · : . ; · n : . : . - : : ~ ; / ·:-· ,. · · .. ·'.

.. S E S S I ) . N - o . F N t 1 N E i c E N : t : E i : i i l i : E ~ ~ r M i L ' F A ' f i D - t f i a n 1'0 · ' .· ·col\fl>LY Wii'B: ..\Ny oF THE A:B:ow i N i f i o N E : D n l i i l i d i t v i i s M A : Y oosULT .rN r4

YOUR ARREST AND/OR PERM'ANENT REVOCATJ.G N OFYOUil iiCENSE .

Deputy t o r

COURTESY • PROFESSIONALISM • RESPECT

Website: bt tp :.f/nyc.gov/nyp<1

l , r~ ;.·

i

f'i

.

\



.... • ,\: ··· '-': i •: ; . ,; -:. ..... :. ' ··· .; .... ; . . • ·.. '. ..,_'.. ,' . ~ - · ' ' · ' · - · · ; , ~ ·• 1• ' • I - · • . . : , ~ .... ~ . . - : . . ' ~ ; • - ' , •• • .... .•.. • • .-,,, - ~ · , : - . - = - . ··. ·, •: ·,.•·:,;..,_; • ··'•'• • •• , ''t •· _ •' ' • ;;..--- : _ . - . ~ · ~ · 1 • · ' . • . :. ....... .. . ...._........ ......... .. __ -·· .. ·- ...... . -· ...... .

To Whom It May Concern:

1 have been the Superintendent and. Building Manager of

. . r rmore than 2? years. I act on the behalf to~ e l e c t i v e Realty.

During the past 25+ years I have come to know Steven Rambam very well. Steven'sapartment is next door to mine.

I have personally observed Steven in our building hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times

during the past 25+ years. Because Steven's apartment is next to mine I see Steven o n ~regular basis, typically once or wice a week. .

I have personally been inside .Steven's apartment numerous times to make repairs andalso to visit. It is an occupied apartment, with Steven'.s furniture, clothes, b.ooks and f<Ven

a bicycle. It is not a sl;lam address. '

There is no question that Steven has a residence in and that he uses that

residence. There is no question that Steven has had that same residence for 25+ years. To

claim otherwise would be false and ridiculous.



;.... .. . ... ·...... - ·

optimum· t 111 STEW RT VENUE

BETHP GEl ttn4 3561

CHANGESERWCEREQUESTED

#BWNHGYM#PGHCFFPCCHHPB6#

AV 01 070261 121068162 A•"SOGT

•t1u11•11'· '••11tlI'·'··1•·litu't'+ •ulfalcl•t II lh . JI

PALLORIUM INCPO BOX 3001S5JMIDWOOO STAT

BROOKLYN NY 11230-0155

Account Summary .

· Servk:Ofor·

PALLORIUMINC

· 78 WEBSTER V ~~ . ~ O O K I Y N N Y ~Billing Period 10116112-11115112

Includes Payments R&e:eived By . · 10/12112

Last·Bill BalancePayments

Remaining Balance

0Urre11t Charges - Due By 10/30/12

Totaf·Amount Due-

Account Detail

Internet10/16 -11/1510116 - 11/15

10/16 . 11115

·Optimum OnUnaSla io iP(Sialic IP raquiiE l; Boost)

BoostTotal Internet

SubtotQf of Curront Charg IJ

Romafnlng,Balanc&Current Charges

Total AmountDue

$1,225.70 cr0.00

$1,225.70 cr

74.90

$1,150.80a

o I . . . , ' ,

49.9510.00

14.9574..90

74.90

1,225.70 Q

$74.90 ·

1,160.80 Q

- . ... . . -. · ... ., _ . . . .

A service of Cablevision

Bii i 'Payment

s«vtcetorPALLORIUM INC

· 8WEBSTERAV lit H•ROOKLYN NY 11 1

10/30/12 None

TURN OVER FOR PAYMENT

\

-- - · .. -·- ·--- ·

Optimum News & Information

. ..... ' . ·-· •..... ...----· -...._..___.,..

r

._

....

i_j.:·

i ,



·

--.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NE W YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK:

--------- ---------------- --------------·------Xfu the Matter of the Application of

STEVEN P. ROMBOM,

Petitioner,

-against-

· .RAYMOND W. KELLY,

As Police Commissioner of t11e City ofNew York,

Respondent,

For an Order Pursuant to Article 78.of the Civil Practice

Law and Rules. Reviewing and annulling a decision of the

Respondept denying Petitioner a license to possess in the

Residence a pistol and/or revolver and a license to possess

a rifle and/or shotgun permit pursuant to Article 400 of the

Penal Law, and requiring that such license be issued toPetitioner.

- ------------ - -:-----:------------· :----- X

R PLYFFIRM TION

fudex#l14616/08

·• : · . • .· . . .- ·_. · • . - : • • : . ~ · - ~ - - : · - - ~ ~ - . .• :: ·_ • . • •• . • ·_ . · ; = · · _ ·· l T J i < l ~ ; R ; byl#s.attorney ROBERT- ·R R CE in response, to · the ·Verified

Answer by Resp.ondent , dated January 12, 2009, states the following :

1. That I make this Reply Affirmation·in support of the Notice of Petition dated October

27,2008.

0

2. Respondent's 11 58 is incorrect as Respondent was arrested for Obstruction of Justice.

Kindly note in said paragraph, note l,at the bottom of the page, Respondent.AD'Ml1TED that

-1-

.;



D AVID A. P ATERSONGOVERNOR

Mr. Steven Rombom

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

D IVIS ION OF LICEN SING SERVICES

ALFRED E. SMITH STATE OFFICE BU ILDING

80 SOUTH SWAN STREET

P O Box 2200 1A LBANY, NY 12201 -2001

L ORRAINE A. CORTES-VAZQUEZSECRETARY OF STATE

March 2 7, 2009

. RE: YOUR RENEWAL FOR PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSE- UID# 11000043070

Dear Licensee:

· Conce rning the o ~ e ca ptioned matter, we·are in receipt of your correspondence indicating that your

handgun pe rmit renewal was denied. Accordingly, please provide the foliow ing informa tion:·

• L ~ t t from NYCP:O showing reason for denial of your ~ a n d gun permit.

Your response is requ ired no later than April20 2009. Failure to respond y result in thecommencement of djsciplinary proceedings .

Please send th; ~ o v e requested documentation to the address above to the at tention of the e c i .

Case Number 2009-00739

TELEPHONE: 518) 474- 4429

Sincerely,

.· ~ r ~ ~ ? f

/ . . . , .:: .-_: ···:•·;., ; · .... : . . .• . , , . . .

· f r i h a r · ·

Sr. License Inves tigator

Application Audit Unit

518) 474-2640 .

FAX : 518) 473-6648 • WWW. OS.STATE.NY.US E-MAIL: [email protected]

i

ii

,



··---.

,, \J / I j

f • , f

. ~1 ' - / TEX S D E P R T ~ E N T P PUBLIC S FETY

STEVEN C. MCCRAW

DIRECTOR

• L M R BECKWORTH

BRAD RABLE

· DEPUTY DIRECTORS

April 13, 2010

Attn: James Hcrkenham

REGULATORY LICENSING DIVISION

OFFICE OF REGULATORY COUNSEL

5806 GUADALUPE, BOX 4087, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78773

License Investigator-Special Projects Unit

New York State Department of State

123 William Street; 1 9 ~ Floor

New York, NY 10038

Rc: Paiiorium Inc (Cu4911)

. COMMISSION

ALLAN B. POLUNSKY, CHAIR

C. TOM CLOWE, JR.D BROWN

JOHNSTEEN

CARIN I I ~ C Y BARTH

Per your open records request, Pallorium Inc (C04911) is an Active company, and Steven·

Rombom an active Owner/Manager/ PI with the Bureau . The company license will expire

on 04/30/2011. To date, there have been no disciplinary ac.tions taken agai.nst this company or. Mr. Rombom.

Tharuc you,

Reggie Andrews, Program Supervisor IIPrivate Security Bureau

Texas Department ofPubHc Safety(5 12) 424- 77 10

·

EQUAL OPPORTUN TY EMPLOYERCOURTESY • SERVICE • PROTECTION

·'-

,,.



POLICE DEPARTMENTHearings & Appea ls Unit

One Po lice Plaza, Room 110

New York NY 10038

Tcl.l -646-610-5873, 5560

CERTIFICATION

REQUEST OF: Investig-dtor James HerkenhamState of New York

Department of State

Re: 29 March 2010 request

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

DATE : March 29, 2010

This is to certify that the enclosed photocopies of the fi rearm s licensing file

pertaining to :

Signature:Thoma s M. Prasso, Di ector

Division

1 Police Plaza, Room 110

N ew York, NY 10038

Tel 646-610-5560

als file in the custody of theof New York.

Sworn to before me this 291 day of March 2010

. _. . . a m = T L 8 H J E I . D S ~W I I V ~ S t a t e of e W ~llc rYNo 02SH4958817Qualified ln New Yori I

Commission expires Nov 13 -

COURTESY • PROFESSIONALISM ... ~ ~ E C TWebsite: http:/ /nyc.gov/nypU



\ -·, ·• •••. -.:._ : .·. _;. . ~ _ · · ' - / · , ; - : ~ . : · : __· . ••- ~ ~ ' : - ~ ~ . ' ' - " J., ...• _ ~ : : : : •• ·:< •; ; . · ; .. _: -__. .· : .. . · . - ~ · : · : . . · . · ~ · - . . . ~ ~ - r ; : . , ; ' : ~ ~ , _ : _ , · : : : . ~ ~ : . · : : •:_::-,_ · ·.: . . · · - ~ •..,::·:.· ~ . - : :.:·_, . _ ·.:·.:.:: ~ - . · : . : . · . .• ••.•_.. . ... •• . . • .,. · · , .••.• . . • . . .• . . . ·. •••• . . __: .... ·.·• •.• ..... .;•.. - .. .. - -- - -- - -- ' - - - - . - -- - ' - .. - _. -...- - . · . .·: :· . .·:..:;._ ._ -· : . . . . .... _:.; .. .. :-... :.:•. :

DAVID A. PATERSONGOVERNOR

Handgun L.icensing Division

New ·York City Police Department

1 Police Plaza

New o ~ k NY 10007

Dear Sir/Madam: .

.STATE OF NEW .YORK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

123 WILLIAM STREET

NEW YORK NY 10038-3804LORRAINE A. CORTES-VAZQUEZ ·

SECRETARYOF S TATE

· Section 8017 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and Section 161 of the Executive Law of the

State·o New York permits the Secretary of State and other Executive branch agencies of State

Government to obta.in photocopies of publicly recorded instruments and filed documents

without cost. In accordance with this statute, pursuant to an investigation being conducted by

this department, please provide this office with certified copies of the following document(_s):.

Any Hand Gun .Licensing Information related to Steven Rombom a/kia Steven Rambam or

.his New York State licensed p r i v a t ~ ~ f s t i g ~ t i o n firm, P a l l o r ~ u m Inc.

.. : ~ - =

This includes, but is not -limited to, a ~ n d all documentation for original applications ,

renewals, and suspension or r e v o c a t i 6 l ~ determinations. .

Sincerely,

James e r k ~ n h a m ·

New Y ork:S-tate D.epartrhent of State

License Investigator

(212) 417-2.063

0

·

WWW .DOS.STATE .NY.US . E-MA IL: INFD@DOS .sTATE •NY.US

~ · .

i·~ ·I:

iiI



(Via Fax: 518-473-6648)New Yo rk State Dept. of StateDivision of Ucensing ServicesP. 0. Box 22001Albany; NY 12201-2001

P LLDRIUM IN c .

Apr:il 8, 2009

RE: License Renewal - PALLORIUM, INC.

ao No. uoooo43o7o

CLA RIFICATION

Sirs:

/

. · ,.

.-

..

In my 02-19-2009 cover letter enclosing our license renewal I checked ''Yes" to question. 1 on the

renewal application, and explained that I was recently denied the renewal of a handgun pennit by theNYCPD for technical and address (riot criminal) reasons.

On 08 April 2009, per your letter dated 27 March 2009, our attorney provided you with requested

clarifying docutnents.

To further clarify, please no te that two (2) .licenses were . de-nied renewal, but the denial was

simultaneous (one denial, one hearing and now one (1) Article 78 hearing). Upon rereading the

question, I am no t·certain i f I should have ·listed both items separately (though my understanding is

.that they are.conSidered to be together). Regardless, the documents provided to yo u cover both items.

Again, please note that I have not ever been convicted of any cr ime, ·nor am .I underindictment, nor. am ineligible for.any reason fox: .the renewal of thlsJicense .. ~ . . . · . ...... . . .•. ,. . :·.- .-.... .i:. > .. · : . · . ' -: ·.>: ·;;?;{;:: : · ~ · · : ;; . : ..

Shouldyou h a : v ~ ~ further que5tions;·please d{ no} ~ ~ i t a t e c Q n ~ c . : f . l P : e ~ ~ f . i : h y .g.tii.e.•

Thanking you in advance-

arrest or

. · :. . . . NFIDENTJAL . .. . .

• LICENSEDINVESTIGA'fORS • DATABASE SERVICES •

P. 0 . BOX 155 • l:vfJDWOOb STATION • ~ O O K L YN, NY • 11230 USA

PHONE: {001) 212-969-0286 • FAX: (001) 212-858-5720 • ELECTRONIC MAIL: [email protected]

·: 1



· z :· ' : - . ~ · ·· ·- -; • ,: .' -J - · : ·.·· .-·· •·•. · ... : : . , ~ ;::., :y:;_: · . ; ..: - . · ; ~ : - ; : ; - ~ : ; - ~ ; ( : . ; . . · : · · ; . ; · ~ : t : _ ~ : ; : ; i . : : } · ~ * ; . ; : . t . ; · . - : : . ; \ . _ : - . . : t : ~ ~ . ·.h : : : : ~ ~ : - - & S j ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r . . ~ ~ - : . { r . ? ~ - ;

·Janine Barnhart

Sr. License Investigator

App lication Audit Unit

Department of State

Division ofLicensing Services

80 So uth Swan StreetPO Box 2200 1

Albany, New York 12201-2001

Dear Ms. Barnhart,

:J? p6ert 2 2 ace

C o u N S E L L O R AT LAw

.3 6A T L A NT IC A V E N U E

B R OC?KLYN . NEw Y o R K I I 2

PHON£ . 7 1 8 ) 5 9 6 - 9 8 5 5

FN< 7 I 8 ) 5 9 6 - 9 5 9

April 8,2009

RE:STEVEN ROMBOM

PALLORJUM "INC

LICENSING.SERVICES

APR 10·2009

Please be advised that I represent-the above named indi:rJdual relative fo a " pending

action" in Supreme Court, New York County, seeking the restoration"of his Premises Residence

License and Rifle/Shotgun License, copy annexed. ·

The Court proceeding was brought by the Petitioner(Rornbom) as·a result of a Final

Agency Determination , dated August 6,2008, wherei':l both ofhis firearms licenses were

Revoked due to an "issue" of his local residence in Kings County(copy annexed) .This is the

docw lent that you requested by letter dated March 27,2009,to the applicant

._ . w . i . n r ~ ~ ~ B ~ f H ~ ~ § ~ · f : 1 1 . g W ~ t 8 - ~ ~ i ~ ~ r ~ ? ~ f ~ K . ? r . . ~ . . .sa1e ty and protection.:Smce m u : . , · · M ' I : . , : / R ; o . i ; t t ' h o n a ~ o m e y , ; m k n ~ j t w l e d n : e ·there.>ar..e.NO• .. , . · ·

· ' · ' ,.,. • 'r · ; : '-•·. : : ' • : - , : : . •,l:.,:. · , · 1 ::: • • j ' f( •:· ...>4-"q."i;•it: . " : r , : . - ~ . . : : • : . : r ' . ~ : : ; . . . ~ ~ . ; : : ; : ; . ; , ~ . : , ~ f t ; . . , - : _ : : : ' [ . ~ ' ~ ~ " } . . " · · : ~ . : : . .- ; . , · • :··: , .. •:

criini'mrl e e e d i i i g f i o i · a g m r l s ( m y c : 5 T I ~ n t . ~ h r : < · a n ) q l l i n ' f i h ~ l s e p r " 6 ' $ ' i l : ) 1 t i r i ' g h i : ' m fro irf'' ', ' .· :· · . · . · · ·

obtaining his current i·enewal -ofhis Private Investigator's License ·

Should anything further be requested, kindly contact my office.. . .

Thankin·g you in advance for your cooperation.

··;

•.

.i'

;:

:..

I

·{



STATE OF NEW Y QRK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DIVIS ION OF LICENSING S ERVICES

A LI;RED. E. SMITH STATE OFFICE BUILD ING

80 SOUTH S WAN S TREET

DAVID A . PATERSONGOVERN OR

PO Box 22001ALBANY, NY 12201-2001

LORRAINE A . C ORTtS-VAzOUEZS ECRETARY OF S TATE

March 27 2009

RE: YOUR RENEWAL FOR PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSE· UID 11000043070 .

Dear Licensee:

Concerning the above captioned matter we are in receipt of your correspondence indicating that your

handgun permit renewal was denied. According ly, please r o v i d the following information:

• e t t ~ r from ~ r p showing reason for d.enial.of your handgun pcrmiL

Your response .is .required no later thanApril20 2009. i l u r to l1f£i. result in the

commencement ofdisciplfnary proceedings.

. .Please send the above requested docum entation to the address above to the attention of the undersigned.

. :. .· . . , :

Case Number 2009-00739 .. · :

t l.· . ,

. . :

TELEPHONE: (518) 474-4429 • fAX: (518) 473-6648 • WWW .DOS.ST ATE. NY. US • E -MAIL: INFO@OOS .STAT E.NY .US

. ·

.:

:.

'

..



; - : : ~ . : : : ; ~ ~ ; : : : : . ~ ; ; ~ ' · · L = ~ X - J : ; ~ : : . · . · _ - ·; _: · \ . : ~ : : · ; : - - ~ - ~ r ~ . : . ~ Y : : . : ; ; i i : Z : t ~ ; { ; ~ : f f i ; ; t · l : ~ ~ ; ; f i ~ { ; : ~ ~ : . ; ~ : ~ : ~ : ~ ? i : ; : ~ : · ~ ~ ; ~ : . ; · : ~ ; - : . :i: ; :::::: i i i ~ ~ ~ . ; : { : ~ i j ~ ~ : i : ; : ~ t : L ..

.. •. .

Dear r. Rombom:

License Division

Bearings & Appeals UnitOne Po lice Plaza, Room 110

New York, NY 10038

;I;eL 1-646-610-5873, 5560 ·I

August 6; 2008

· Re: Hearing Index No. 123/07

license Nos. PR10039747, RS6249502 ·

As a·result ofan .adririnistrative hearing held on December 19, 2007, which 'record

was_held open until January 15, 2008, your r e m i s e s R e s i d ~ n c e handgun license and.

·Rifle/Shotgun permit have been REVOKED 'A copy of the hearing report is ·enclo.sed.

. .· This determination .concludes the Police Department s review of his matter. You

may appeal this determination by commencing an .Article 78 proceeding in Supreme

Court within four months of the date of this Je.tter.

. ,: : .. . . · . ;. .

. ·; l o s u r ec:

Robert R. Race, Esq.

308 Atlantic Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thomas M. Prasso

.,. ' . . ? l : : . : ~ · . , .

• • . : :1 : -- .. . • '\ •.

COu.RTESY . PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT

W eb SJ.ffte: lbttp:/flmye.g®v/nwllll

j

'

..

;

;

';



· Matter ofRombom v Kelly 2010 NY Slip Op 04059)-\·· . ..

• r

· /1 . .\/· I

I·

Matter of Romboin v Kelly

201 QNY Slip Op 04059 [73 AD3d 508]

j · May 11, 2010

· Appellate Division, First Department ·

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law§ 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010

In the Matter of Steven P. Rombom, Petitioner,

v

Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York,Respondent

- [* 1] Robert R. Race, Brooklyn, for petitioner.

Page 1 of2

II

I

I

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Mordecai -Newman of counsel),

for respondent.

Determination of respondent Police Department-License Division, dated August 6,

2008, revoking petitioner s premises-residence handgun.license and rifle/shotgun permit,

unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR

article 78 (transferred to this Court by order f t h ~ Supreme Court, New York County

[Marcy S. Friedman, J.], entered May 5, 2009) ·dismissed, without costs.

. H ; b ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I t t ~ f l ~ t { j ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ a b ; ~ ~ ~ · ~ ; ~ ; t p ~ ·Administrative Code of City ofNY § 10-303 [a] [2]). Such evidence consists of the record

in a prior, 2005 proceeding that resulted in the revocation of petitioner s business-carry

pistol license on a fmding that he conspired with another individual to deceive the License. - . - . .

Division over a period of years about his business address see Matter o Fastag v Kerik, ·

295 ·AD2d 114 [2002]). h ~ r e was also substantial evidence that petitioner did not reside or

have a p1incipal place of business in New York City, as required to possess a m i s s -residence handgun license (38 RCNY 5-02 [g]; see Matter o Mahoney v Lewis, 199 AD2d

. · 734, 735[3d Dept 1993]). Such evidence consists ofpeti tioner s failure to produce any gas,

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_04059.htm 2/28/201r

,

1



MaUer ofRombom v Kelly (2010 NY Slip Op 04059) Page 2 of

electricity or telephone bills for his alleged Brooklyn residence, his use of a Brooklyn

P.O. box as the address on his tax returns and on his recently acquired New York State

' riondriver's ID, and his.maintenance of a Texas [*2]driver's license since 1984. No basis

exists to disturb the Hearing Officer's findings of credibility see Sewell v City o New York

182 AD2d 469, 473 [1992], lv denied 80 NY d 756 [ 992]). Concur- Tom, J.P., Sweeny, .

Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Manianet-Daniels, JJ.

I, ':

·::: · ; . . •:•'·

:(.;.• • • • • 0

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/201 0/2010_04059.htm 2/28/20



s

SUPREME COURT OF Til STATE OF N W YORK

COUNTY OF N W YORK

.. ... _ _•. • • - ... : .. ...... - ...-.._:_.k.: . • . . : . : : .

X

In the Matter of the·Application of .

STEVEN P. ROMBOM, Index No . 114616/.08

Petitioner,

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the .Civil Practice

Law and Rules.

-against-

··RAYMOND W. KELLY, as Police Commissioner of the

City ofNew York,

Respondent.

X

RESPONDENT S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Gabriel Taussig,

Sheryl Neufeld,

William H. Vidal,

Of Counsel.

January 12, 2009

• • • r ___ .. , •

MICHAEL A. CARDOZOCorporation Counsel of the

City of New York

Attorney for Respondent

100 Church Street, Room 5-177

New York New York 10007

Tel: 212) 788-8683

•• · = . .

," .; '·:.: ::. . ....... 1>0'" '-" '" ' '

nypd disarms steve rombom

Documents