Opinion
2019–14169
01-13-2021
In the Matter of Jamal HARRISON, petitioner, v. Barry WARHIT, etc., respondent.
Jonna M. Spilbor, Poughkeepsie, NY, for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth A. Figueira of counsel), for respondent.
Jonna M. Spilbor, Poughkeepsie, NY, for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Elizabeth A. Figueira of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Barry Warhit, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated August 9, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for a pistol license.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the respondent's contention, the instant proceeding was timely commenced (see CPLR 217 ; Matter of Biondo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 N.Y.2d 832, 834, 470 N.Y.S.2d 130, 458 N.E.2d 371 ; Matter of DeSabato v. Board of Assessors of Town of Islip, 248 A.D.2d 469, 469, 668 N.Y.S.2d 926 ; Matter of Munroe v. Ponte, 148 A.D.3d 1025, 1026–1027, 50 N.Y.S.3d 423 ).
Penal Law § 400.00(1), which sets forth the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license, requires, inter alia, that the applicant be at least 21 years of age, of good moral character with no prior convictions of a felony or serious offense, a person who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order, and a person "concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license" ( Penal Law § 400.00[1][n] ; see Matter of Tuttle v. Cacace, 164 A.D.3d 678, 678, 81 N.Y.S.3d 195 ). "A pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny an application for any good cause" ( Matter of Orgel v. DiFiore, 303 A.D.2d 758, 758, 756 N.Y.S.2d 870 ; see Penal Law § 400.00[1][n] ; Matter of Nelson v. County of Suffolk, 171 A.D.3d 756, 756–757, 97 N.Y.S.3d 209 ; Matter of Gonzalez v. Lawrence, 36 A.D.3d 807, 808, 831 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). "Where an applicant challenges a determination that either revokes a firearm license or denies an application for a firearm license, the court can only review ‘whether a rational basis exists for the licensing authority's determination, or whether the determination is arbitrary or capricious’ " ( Matter of Nelson v. County of Suffolk, 171 A.D.3d at 757, 97 N.Y.S.3d 209, quoting Matter of Karagolian v. Walsh, 107 A.D.3d 715, 716, 966 N.Y.S.2d 518 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent's determination that good cause existed to deny the application for a pistol license was rationally based, and neither arbitrary nor capricious. The petitioner's five prior arrests, one of which terminated in a plea of guilty to criminal trespass in the third degree and one of which terminated in a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct, and his failure to disclose the arrests on a prior pistol license application, were sufficient to support the respondent's determination (see Matter of Tuttle v. Cacace, 164 A.D.3d at 678, 81 N.Y.S.3d 195 ; Matter of Kelly v. Klein, 96 A.D.3d 846, 847, 946 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; Matter of Velez v. DiBella, 77 A.D.3d 670, 670, 909 N.Y.S.2d 83 ; Matter of Gonzalez v. Lawrence, 36 A.D.3d at 808, 831 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). The fact that the charges against the petitioner in three cases were dismissed and/or adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and eventually dismissed does not disqualify the circumstances surrounding the arrests from consideration (see Matter of Tuttle v. Cacace, 164 A.D.3d at 678, 81 N.Y.S.3d 195 ; Matter of Kelly v. Klein, 96 A.D.3d at 847, 946 N.Y.S.2d 218 ; Matter of Gonzalez v. Lawrence, 36 A.D.3d at 808, 831 N.Y.S.2d 180 ). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.
MASTRO, A.P.J., CHAMBERS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.