From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feltz v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 18, 2013
108 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-07-18

In the Matter of Ryan FELTZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of New York et al., Respondents.

Ryan Feltz, Purling, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for County Judge of Greene County, respondent.



Ryan Feltz, Purling, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for County Judge of Greene County, respondent.
Bailey, Kelleher & Johnson, PC, Albany (Crystal R. Peck of counsel), for Town Justice of the Town of Cairo, respondent.

Before: ROSE, J.P., STEIN, and GARRY, JJ.

, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506[b][1] to, among other things, compel respondents to reinstate petitioner's pistol permit.

In late May 2012, petitioner was ordered, pursuant to a temporary order of protection issued by Family Court, Greene County (Tailleur, J.), to surrender all pistols, rifles and other firearms ( seeFamily Ct. Act § 842–a [1][b] ). Upon compliance with that order, petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree based on his surrender of an alleged unlawfully possessed firearm ( seePenal Law § 265.01 [1] ). As a result, in late June 2012, respondent County Judge of Greene County suspended petitioner's pistol permit pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. The following month, the temporary order of protection was vacated. In August 2012, petitioner commenced this special proceeding pro se seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to reinstate his pistol permit and dismiss the criminal charge against him.

Subsequent to petitioner's initiation of this special proceeding, the criminal charge against him was dismissed by respondent Town Justice of the Town of Cairo based upon the conclusion that petitioner's surrender of the alleged illegal and/or unlicensed firearm was privileged under the Fifth Amendment ( seeU.S. Const., 5th Amend.; People v. Havrish, 8 N.Y.3d 389, 395–397, 834 N.Y.S.2d 681, 866 N.E.2d 1009 [2007],cert. denied552 U.S. 886, 128 S.Ct. 207, 169 L.Ed.2d 145 [2007] ). Petitioner applied for reinstatement of his pistol permit and, after the County Judge recused himself, the permit matter was transferred to County Court, Columbia County. While this special proceeding was still pending, County Court, Columbia County (Koweek, J.) held a hearing and reinstated petitioner's pistol permit. As petitioner has been afforded the full relief sought in this special proceeding—i.e., reinstatement of his pistol permit and dismissal of the criminal charges against him—the petition herein must be dismissed as moot ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980];Matter of Johnson v. Evans, 76 A.D.3d 1164, 1164, 907 N.Y.S.2d 728 [2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 135304 [2011];Matter of Tryon v. County Ct. of Chenango County, 48 A.D.2d 960, 960, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1014 [1975] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either moot or not properly before us ( seeCPLR 506[b][1]; 7803).

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ROSE, J.P., STEIN and GARRY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Feltz v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jul 18, 2013
108 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Feltz v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Ryan FELTZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of New York et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 18, 2013

Citations

108 A.D.3d 950 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
969 N.Y.S.2d 609
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5345

Citing Cases

Persaud v. City of Schenectady

Petitioner has advised this Court that during the pendency of this appeal, respondent conducted the final…

Lee v. Office of Temp. Disability Assistance (In re the Proceeding Under Article 78 Of the CPLR for a Writ of Mandamus)

Since Petitioner's request for relief was limited to the appeal of the March 30, 2022 decision and such…