Case ID: ad3d_127/html/0644-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Carlos R. Delgado, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, Respondent.
    [8 NYS3d 172]—
   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)]).

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

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