| Matter of Delgado v Kelly |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03475 [127 AD3d 644] |
| April 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Carlos R. Delgado,Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, Respondent. |
Law Offices of John S. Chambers, New York (John S. Chambers of counsel), forappellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Drake A. Colley of counsel),for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October16, 2013, denying the petition seeking an order directing respondent to, inter alia, grantpetitioner's application for a premises residence handgun license, denied by adetermination of the Police Department's Handgun Licensing Division (NYPD-LD),dated June 20, 2012, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The NYPD-LD based its determination upon evidence indicating that petitionermade an untruthful statement on his application regarding a domestic violence incidentthat involved him, his wife and the police. This provided a rational basis for theNYPD-LD to conclude that petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard,given the totality of the information submitted in connection with the application (seeMatter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale& Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). Petitioner'sargument that the licensing eligibility standards in Penal Law § 400.00et seq., as applied herein, including the requirements of truthful entries on thelicense application and demonstration of good moral character, impermissibly impingeupon his Second Amendment right to have a firearm in his home, is unavailing. Thelicensing scheme at issue satisfies the requisite constitutional standard, intermediatescrutiny, as it serves a governmental interest in maintaining public safety (seeKachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F3d 81, 93 n 17 [2d Cir 2012], certdenied 569 US &mdash, 133 S Ct 1806 [2013]; New York State Rifle &Pistol Assn. v City of New York, 2015 WL 500172, *7, 2015 US Dist LEXIS13956, *17-18 [SD NY, Feb. 4, 2015, No. 13-Civ-2115(RWS)]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, Kapnick JJ.