Opinion
12-03-2015
The Law Offices of John S. Chambers, New York (John S. Chambers of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for respondent.
The Law Offices of John S. Chambers, New York (John S. Chambers of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Susan Paulson of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered July 25, 2014, denying the petition seeking, among other things, to compel respondent Police Commissioner to grant petitioner permission to travel outside of New York City with his licensed handgun, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's current rules regarding a handgun premises license, which, as pertinent here, permits premises licensees with hunting authorizations to take their handguns outside of New York City for hunting purposes, but precludes other premises licensees from transporting their handguns outside of the City (see 38 RCNY 5–23[a] ), is rational and not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Sanchez v. Kelly, 34 A.D.3d 252, 823 N.Y.S.2d 400 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 805, 831 N.Y.S.2d 107, 863 N.E.2d 112 [2007]; Matter of Murad v. City of New York, 12 A.D.3d 193, 783 N.Y.S.2d 585 [1st Dept.2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 708, 796 N.Y.S.2d 581, 829 N.E.2d 674 [2005]; de Illy v. Kelly, 6 A.D.3d 217, 218, 775 N.Y.S.2d 256 [1st Dept.2004] ). Nor do the challenged rules violate petitioner's equal protection rights, as the rules are rationally related to legitimate interests of the New York City Police Department, including public safety and crime prevention (see D'Amico v. Crosson, 93 N.Y.2d 29, 31–32, 686 N.Y.S.2d 756, 709 N.E.2d 465 [1999]; see also Murad, 12 A.D.3d at 194, 783 N.Y.S.2d 585).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RENWICK, SAXE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.