From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sgueglia v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 3, 2015
134 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-03-2015

In re Stephen T. SGUEGLIA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, etc., Respondent–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.


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.


Summaries of

Sgueglia v. Kelly

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 3, 2015
134 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Sgueglia v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:In re Stephen T. SGUEGLIA, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Raymond KELLY, etc.…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 8927
19 N.Y.S.3d 742