IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL A D'ANTONIO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4439-08T44439-08T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE

APPEAL OF MICHAEL A.

D'ANTONIO FROM THE DENIAL

OF AN APPLICATION FOR A

PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted January 21, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. 09-14.

Michael A. D'Antonio, appellant pro se.

John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Annmarie Cozzi, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Michael D'Antonio appeals from an order denying his application for a permit to carry a handgun. We affirm.

D'Antonio filed an application for a permit to carry a handgun with the Allendale Police Department. His application was denied by the Chief of Police and he appealed to the Law Division.

Judge Jonathan N. Harris conducted a hearing and issued an extensive written opinion that summarizes the evidence received at the hearing, which we substantially adopt here, and sets forth in detail his reasons for denying the application. The appellant has presented the following issues in this appeal:

POINT I

THE TRIAL JUDGE ASSUMED PERSONAL INFORMATION CONTRARY TO FACTS ESTABLISHED IN THE TRANSCRIPT.

POINT II

THE TRIAL JUDGE USED CASE LAW OF HIS CHOICE IN DECIDING THE CASE AS THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT SUBMIT CASE LAW IN THE STATE'S PRESENTATION.

POINT III

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN APPLICATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c), (d).

POINT IV

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN UNDERSTANDING [IN RE PREIS, 118 N.J. 564 (1990).]

POINT V

THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN UNDERSTANDING [STATE v. SIMA, 142 N.J. Super. 187 (APP. DIV. 1976), AFF'D O.B., 75 N.J. 72 (1977).]

 
After careful review of the record and briefs, we are satisfied that none of these arguments has any merit and affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Harris's written opinion.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4439-08T4

July 8, 2010