Opinion
12195 Index No. 100276/19 Case No. 2019-05457
10-27-2020
In re Marius BRADEANU, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jonathan DAVIS, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Marius Bradeanu, petitioner pro se. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), for respondents.
Marius Bradeanu, petitioner pro se.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), for respondents.
Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Gonza´lez, Shulman, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carole Edmead, J.), entered on or about October 16, 2019, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated July 8, 2019, which denied petitioner's application for a premises (residence) handgun license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly found that respondent had a rational basis for denying the application based on its finding that petitioner has failed to maintain the requisite good moral character for issuance of a handgun license, given, among other things, his 2008 driving while intoxicated arrest and infraction for driving while impaired, a 2009 police report of a domestic incident, and his record of driving infractions (see Matter of Olivera v. Kelly , 23 A.D.3d 216, 805 N.Y.S.2d 6 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 709, 813 N.Y.S.2d 45, 846 N.E.2d 476 [2006] ; Matter of Papaioannou v. Kelly , 14 A.D.3d 459, 460, 788 N.Y.S.2d 378 [1st Dept. 2005] ).
Under this Court's settled precedent, the licensing scheme ( Penal Law § 400.00 et seq. ) satisfies the requisite constitutional standard, intermediate scrutiny, as it serves a governmental interest in maintaining public safety (see Matter of Delgado v. Kelly , 127 A.D.3d 644, 8 N.Y.S.3d 172 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 905, 2015 WL 5445688 [2015] ; Matter of Esperon v. Kelly , 125 A.D.3d 460, 3 N.Y.S.3d 343 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Caputo v. Kelly , 117 A.D.3d 644, 987 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 2014] ; see also Kachalsky v. County of Westchester , 701 F.3d 81, 94 n 17 [2d Cir.2012], cert denied 569 U.S. 918, 133 S.Ct. 1806, 185 L.Ed.2d 812 [2013] ), and petitioner offers no compelling basis to disturb this binding precedent, which correctly applied the Supreme Court's controlling decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008).