In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Howard L. Margulis's Application, Etc.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0125-24
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HOWARD L. MARGULIS'S APPLICATION FOR A FIREARMS PURCHASER IDENTIFICATION CARD and TWO PERMITS TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN.
Argued September 11, 2025 – Decided October 3, 2025 Before Judges Smith and Jablonski.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. GPA-BER-0039-
23.
Darren M. Gelber argued the cause for appellant Howard L. Margulis (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, PA, attorneys; Darren M. Gelber, of counsel and on the briefs).
Edward F. Ray, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; Edward F. Ray, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Howard L. Margulis, appeals from the Law Division's order denying his application for a firearms purchaser identification card (FPIC) and two handgun purchase permits (HPP). Deferring to the trial court's fact-finding and credibility assessments, we conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the "public health, safety, or welfare" would be jeopardized if the applications were granted because petitioner lacked the "essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). We affirm.
I.
After petitioner applied for an FPIC and for two HPPs and the required investigation was completed, the local police chief denied the application, concluding the issuance of these permits endangered the public health, safety, or welfare. See N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). Petitioner appealed, and the trial judge heard testimony over a two-day period. In opposition to petitioner's application, the State called the investigating detective, petitioner's former spouse, S.H., and S.H.'s ex-boyfriend, M.C.1 In support of his request, petitioner, his partner, D.Y., and D.Y.'s daughter, A.R., testified.
1 We use the parties' initials to protect their confidentiality. R. 1:38-3(d)(10).
A-0125-24
The record shows the near twenty-year marital relationship between S.H.
and petitioner was tumultuous and pockmarked with disturbing violent incidents. For example, while living in Illinois in March 1987, S.H. accused petitioner of punching her with both fists on the upper left side of her back near her shoulders, which caused bruising. Police arrested petitioner and charged him with assault. S.H. then obtained a protection order. The charges were dismissed following petitioner's completion of an anger management program.
In 2003, after the parties moved to New Jersey, petitioner engaged in various incidents of physical and emotional abuse against S.H. and their children. She testified petitioner was "abusive to all of them." Notably, S.H. testified petitioner chased his oldest daughter around the house with a knife and knocked her to the ground and "pummeled the back of her head." S.H. also testified petitioner dragged his son across the carpet that caused rug burns on his back. Finally, after S.H. denied petitioner entry to her home, he threatened to "murder [S.H.] in her sleep" and said "I'll chop your head off and roll it down the street like a bowling ball."
M.C. testified that petitioner made threats to him directly. In January 2005, S.H. refused to permit petitioner to enter her home during a scheduled pick-up of the children for visitation. When M.C. intervened to defend S.H.,
A-0125-24
petitioner threatened M.C., stating, "you don't belong here . . . I'm going to take a knife, cut your head open, and let your brains spill out over the street." The record indicates three separate temporary domestic violence restraining orders were issued against petitioner- two in 2003 and one in 2005. The court denied one 2003 request for final restraints. The record indicates the remaining 2003 and the 2005 applications were dismissed.
Petitioner denied the incidents. He testified he never "struck" S.H. nor his children, and refuted ever threatening M.C. All the allegations, according to petitioner, were contrived by S.H. and M.C. Regarding the March 1987 incident, petitioner admitted to being arrested, but denied punching nor bruising S.H. When asked about S.H.'s testimony of other arrests, petitioner initially testified he could not remember being taken into custody, but later added "I could be wrong" and "these things sort of have run together." Petitioner minimized most of the events to which S.H. testified and characterized them as a "kerfuffle."
D.Y., petitioner's current partner, and D.Y.'s daughter, A.R. testified in support of petitioner. Both testified that during their approximately fifteen-year relationship, neither observed petitioner losing his temper, threatening anyone, or being violent.
A-0125-24
In a comprehensive oral decision, the trial judge denied petitioner's application for a FPIC and his HPP requests.
The judge believed S.H. noting "she credibly testified as to [petitioner's]
temper and his abusive behavior towards not only her, but their children as well . . . ." Although the judge acknowledged S.H.'s occasional lack of detail, the judge attributed it to the stress of reliving prior trauma. The judge also acknowledged M.C.'s testimony as trustworthy, noting M.C. "testified forthright[ly] during both direct and cross[-]examination and had no interest in the outcome of the matter."
On balance, the trial court found petitioner's testimony less than credible noting the testimony regarding his asserted passivity was "self[-]serving and lack[ing] credibility." Notably, the trial judge pointed to petitioner's behavior during S.H.'s testimony:
[Defense Counsel] It's true, isn't it, that [petitioner] was incarcerated in New York because you lied to the court?
[S.H.] I did not -- . . .
Lie to the [court] and never did.
Petitioner: Yes, you did.
[S.H.] And he should-
Court: Sir!
A-0125-24
[S.H.] -- have been—
Court: Sir!
[S.H.] -- incarcerated sooner.
The judge found petitioner's conduct at trial to be disturbing:
What was alarming during [S.H.'s] testimony was not her demeanor, but [petitioner's] demeanor. At one point, [petitioner] had an outburst where he blurted something out and waved his arms in the air to the point where I had to reprimand him over his conduct. This was telling to me.
[Petitioner] is applying for a [FPIC], trying to convince a [c]ourt that he has the proper temperament to own a firearm, but was not even able to control his own temper in the courtroom.
The judge did not attribute much weight to the petitioner's other witnesses and observed their respective testimony was "self[-]serving and not believable" particularly in light of S.H.'s detailed allegations, the 2005 incident with M.C., and petitioner's trial outburst.
Basing his decision primarily on witness credibility assessments, the judge concluded the petitioner's applications should be denied. The trial judge determined petitioner lacked "the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm" highlighting petitioner's conduct underlying the past behavior, multiple criminal charges, and temporary restraining orders were
A-0125-24
"concerning to say the least." The judge ultimately found issuance of the requested licenses would not serve the public's health, safety, and welfare. See N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).
Petitioner appealed.
II.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Howard L. Margulis's Application, Etc. (In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Howard L. Margulis's Application, Etc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.