Matter of Delgado v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Delgado v. Kelly

127 A.D.3d 644, 8 N.Y.S.3d 172

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2015

Docket14955 104061/12

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 644 (Matter of Delgado v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Delgado v. Kelly, 127 A.D.3d 644, 8 N.Y.S.3d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 16, 2013, denying the petition seeking an order directing respondent to, inter alia, grant petitioner’s application for a premises residence handgun license, denied by a determination of the Police Department’s Handgun Licensing Division (NYPD-LD), dated June 20, 2012, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The NYPD-LD based its determination upon evidence indicating that petitioner made an untruthful statement on his application regarding a domestic violence incident that involved him, his wife and the police. This provided a rational basis for the NYPD-LD to conclude that petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard, given the totality of the information submitted in connection with the application (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Petitioner’s argument that the licensing eligibility standards in Penal Law § 400.00 et seq., as applied herein, including the requirements of truthful entries on the license application and demonstration of good moral character, impermissibly impinge upon his Second Amendment right to have a firearm in his home, is unavailing. The licensing scheme at issue satisfies the requisite constitutional standard, intermediate scrutiny, as it serves a governmental interest in maintaining public safety (see Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F3d 81, 93 n 17 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US —, 133 S Ct 1806 [2013]; New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v City of New York, 2015 WL 500172, *7, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 13956, *17-18 [SD NY, Feb. 4, 2015, No. 13-Civ-2115(RWS)]).

*645 We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, Kapnick JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 16, 2013, denying the petition seeking an order directing respondent to, inter alia, grant petitioner’s application for a premises residence handgun license, denied by a determination of the Police Department’s Handgun Licensing Division (NYPD-LD), dated June 20, 2012, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The NYPD-LD based its determination upon evidence indicating that petitioner made an untruthful statement on his application regarding a domestic violence incident that involved him, his wife and the police. This provided a rational basis for the NYPD-LD to conclude that petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard, given the totality of the information submitted in connection with the application (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Petitioner’s argument that the licensing eligibility standards in Penal Law § 400.00 et seq., as applied herein, including the requirements of truthful entries on the license application and demonstration of good moral character, impermissibly impinge upon his Second Amendment right to have a firearm in his home, is unavailing. The licensing scheme at issue satisfies the requisite constitutional standard, intermediate scrutiny, as it serves a governmental interest in maintaining public safety (see Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F3d 81, 93 n 17 [2d Cir 2012], cert denied 569 US —, 133 S Ct 1806 [2013]; New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v City of New York, 2015 WL 500172, *7, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 13956, *17-18 [SD NY, Feb. 4, 2015, No. 13-Civ-2115(RWS)]).

*645 We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, Kapnick JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 644, 8 N.Y.S.3d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-delgado-v-kelly-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack