Opinion
716 Index No. 100881/21 Case No. 2022–04125
10-05-2023
In the Matter of Tabitha WARD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS LICENSE DIVISION, Respondent–Respondent.
Tabitha Ward, appellant pro se. Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
Tabitha Ward, appellant pro se.
Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Tahirih M. Sadrieh of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Singh, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered February 10, 2022, denying the petition to annul a determination of respondent New York Police Department Headquarters License Division, dated June 30, 2021, which denied petitioner's application for a carry business handgun license, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondent's denial of petitioner's application for a handgun license was not arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803[3] ; Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County , 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ). Although petitioner's failure to demonstrate "proper cause" may no longer serve as an appropriate ground for the denial of a handgun license (see New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 [2022] ; Matter of Vicari v. Shea, 215 A.D.3d 510, 186 N.Y.S.3d 207 [1st Dept. 2023] ), the license was rationally denied.
In reaching its determination, respondent properly considered petitioner's 2011 arrest in Alabama for threatening a relative, despite the subsequent dismissal of the charges (see 38 RCNY 5–10[a], [g]; Matter of Peric v. New York City Police Dept., License Div., Rifle/Shotgun Sec., 5 A.D.3d 142, 772 N.Y.S.2d 507 [1st Dept. 2004] ). The record also shows that petitioner failed to cooperate with respondent's investigation of her application by failing to disclose a summons from the Transit Adjudication Board, and failing to submit a lifetime DMV abstract or a statement from a person who would safeguard her firearm in case of her death or disability (see 38 RCNY 5–10[m]). Nor did petitioner provide the required character references (see 38 RCNY 5–05[8]). Petitioner's omissions, along with false statements she made in her application, were sufficient grounds for the denial of her application (see Matter of Delgado v. Kelly, 127 A.D.3d 644, 644, 8 N.Y.S.3d 172 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 905, 2015 WL 5445688 [2015] ; Matter of Wilson v. New York City Police Dept. License Div., 115 A.D.3d 552, 982 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2014] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.