Opinion
Appeal No. 14774 Index No. 151725/20Case No. 2020-04746
12-07-2021
In the Matter of Cavalier D. Knight, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The City of New York et al., Respondents-Respondents. Appeal No. 14774 No. 2020-04746
Cavalier D. Knight, appellant pro se. Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza-Brown of counsel), for respondents.
Cavalier D. Knight, appellant pro se.
Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, New York (Daniel Matza-Brown of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Singh, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ.
Judgment (denominated decision and order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 29, 2020, denying the petition seeking, among other things, to enjoin respondents from enforcing certain provisions of the New York State firearm licensing scheme, and granting respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner's challenge to respondents' denial of his application for a carry business firearms license, which would allow him to carry concealed handguns in public places (Penal Law § 400.00[2][c]-[f]; 38 RCNY 5-23[b]), is not ripe for review. Although petitioner contends that he requires a concealed firearm for purposes of maintaining his business - through which he sells firearms, among other things - he has not applied for a New York firearm dealer's license, and respondents have not issued any final and binding determination on any such application (see Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510, 520-521 [1986], cert denied 479 U.S. 985 [1986]). Nor does it avail petitioner to argue that filing such an application would be futile, as he offers no support for that contention (see e.g. Matter of Guddemi v Rozzi, 210 A.D.2d 479, 480 [2d Dept 1994], appeal dismissed 85 N.Y.2d 966 [1995], lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 706 [1995]).
Even if this proceeding were ripe, it would be precluded by petitioner's prior article 78 proceeding under the doctrine of res judicata (Matter of Knight v Bratton, 48 Misc.3d 536, 538 [Sup Ct, NY County 2015]; see Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 N.Y.3d 107, 111 [2021]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.