Resources: Key Court Decisions on New York Firearm Permits
This page collects the leading court decisions on concealed carry, handgun, and rifle/shotgun permits in New York, organized by category, with a short explanation of each decision. It is intended as a research aid for applicants and practitioners; it is not legal advice.
Court Decisions
I. The Constitutional Framework
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (The Supreme Court invalidated New York’s “proper cause” requirement for handgun permits; the ruling established that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in public without needing to show a unique or special need)
• Sherr v. Everett, 228 A.D.3d 872 (2d Dept 2024) (Determining that broad constitutional challenges against licensing laws must be filed as declaratory judgment actions; Article 78 proceedings are reserved for reviewing specific administrative rulings rather than the validity of the underlying statute itself)
•Wolford v. Lopez, (U.S. Supreme Court June 25, 2026)(a licensed carrier may enter a business open to the public with a firearm unless the owner says otherwise)(Click here for detailed analysis of concealed carry laws in New York)
II. Concealed Carry / Handgun Licenses -
Denials Reversed or Annulled
Goldstein v. Brown, 189 A.D.2d 649 (1st Dept 1993)
(annulling denial as arbitrary and capricious where the NYPD gave no explanation for distinguishing the applicant, who submitted proof of threats against his life, from other applicants granted carry permits on less specific proof of threats)
DiSanto v. Kelly, 22 A.D.3d 357
(1st Dept 2005)
(reversing denial and directing issuance of a carry license; a minor technical violation of a notification procedure could not justify denial against a 15-year unblemished record as a licensed carry permit holder, particularly where the NYPD itself deemed the applicant fit to retain his premises business license)
How long should the process take?
(The law says six months, absent written notice of good cause for delay. Real-world waits are often longer, which may itself be grounds for legal action.)
Callahan v. City of New York, 208 A.D.3d 422 (1st Dept 2022)
(license renewal and remanding for reevaluation where the denial rested on the “proper cause” standard invalidated by Bruen)
Diperna-Gillen v. Ryba, 215 A.D.3d 1193 (3d Dept 2023)
(reversal of a denial that relied on the "proper cause" standard; the court ruled this criteria unconstitutional per Bruen and ordered a new review under the current Concealed Carry Improvement Act guidelines)
Blumenfeld v. Codd, 89 Misc.2d 837 (Sup Ct, Bronx County 1977)
(granting Article 78 petition and vacating denial of a carry license where an attorney practicing in a high-crime area demonstrated threats, regular handling of substantial cash, a burglarized office, and inadequate police protection)
Klein v. Police Commissioner, 99 Misc.2d 186 (Sup Ct, NY County 1979)
(holding revocation arbitrary and capricious where a motor vehicle arrest involved no firearm-related misconduct; penalty was disproportionate to a 30-year unblemished record and the licensee’s business need)
Alsaede v. Kelly, 96 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dept 2012)
(holding the License Division bound by its stipulation to issue a limited carry business license, which it entered into with knowledge of the applicant’s outstanding arrest)
III. Concealed Carry / Handgun Licenses -
Denials or Revocations Upheld
Ward v. NYPD License Division, 220 A.D.3d 456 (1st Dept 2023)
(business license under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard where the applicant had a prior arrest
for threatening a relative, made false statements in her application, failed to cooperate with the
investigation, and failed to provide required character references)
Post-Bruen / CCIA Decisions
Sherr v. Everett, 228 A.D.3d 872 (2d Dept 2024)
(affirming denial under the CCIA’s “good moral
character” standard)
Nagi v. Barrett, 232 A.D.3d 1261 (4th Dept 2024)
(affirming denial; the arbitrary-and-capricious
standard - not the substantial evidence standard - applies where the licensing determination was made without a quasi-judicial hearing, even when the licensing officer is a sitting judge)
Harper v. Neary, 225 A.D.3d 595
(2d Dept 2024)
(affirming denial supported by criminal history;
holding mandamus unavailable because Penal Law § 400.00 creates no clear legal right to a license
and the good-moral-character determination is discretionary, not ministerial)
Berisha v. Fufidio, 234 A.D.3d 685 (2d Dept 2025)
(affirming denial of an unrestricted carry license
and holding mandamus unavailable to compel issuance; the statute requires a discretionary
character determination and background review)
Pre-Bruen Decisions
• Williams v. Bratton, 238 A.D.2d 269 (1st Dept 1997) (reversing a lower court order that had directed issuance of a carry license to an attorney; denial was not arbitrary given insufficient documentation of cash handling and a prior arrest for discharging a firearm)
• Milo v. Kelly, 211 A.D.2d 488 (1st Dept 1995) (affirming denial where an elevator repairman making weekly cash deposits failed to demonstrate a special need distinguishable from others similarly situated under the then-applicable “proper cause” standard)
• Fondacaro v. Kelly, 234 A.D.2d 173 (1st Dept 1996) (affirming denial of a carry license to a New Jersey physician practicing in the City; his plan to load and unload his pistol in a vehicle on City streets raised public safety concerns)
• Kozhar v. Kelly, 62 A.D.3d 540 (1st Dept 2009) (confirming denial of a carry business license and revocation of a premises license on substantial evidence, following a hearing, where the applicant failed to disclose domestic incident reports and temporary orders of protection)
• Trimis v. New York City Police Dept., 300 A.D.2d 162 (1st Dept 2002) (confirming revocation on substantial evidence while observing that the licensing officer’s discretion “is not unfettered” and remains reviewable in court)
IV. Delay and Mandamus - Compelling the NYPD to Act
Penal Law § 400.00(4-b)
(statute requiring the licensing officer to act on an application within six months of presentment, absent written notice specifically stating the reasons for delay, and to either grant the license or deny it for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing)
Harper v. Neary, 225 A.D.3d 595
(2d Dept 2024)
(mandamus under CPLR 7803(1) unavailable to
compel issuance of a license, because the statute confers discretion rather than imposing a
ministerial duty to grant)
Berisha v. Fufidio, 234 A.D.3d 685 (2d Dept 2025)
(denying an Article 78 mandamus petition; Penal Law § 400.00 creates no clear legal right to a license and imposes no ministerial duty, so mandamus will not lie to compel issuance, and the licensing judge properly declined to treat the applicant's request to amend his restricted permit as an application for an unrestricted concealed-carry license)
V. Rifle and Shotgun Permits
(NYC Administrative Code § 10-303)
Wong v. Kelly, 12 A.D.3d 213
(1st Dept 2004)
(noting that the requirements for a rifle/shotgun
permit are less stringent than those for pistol licenses, but affirming denial based on the applicant’s
arrest history for assaultive behavior)
Rezek v. Kelly, 13 A.D.3d 193
1st Dept 2004)
(confirming that rifle/shotgun permit standards
under 38 RCNY 3-03 do not include the “good cause” showing applicable to pistol permits, but affirming denial based on multiple firearms-related arrests over a 30-year period)
Farrell v. NYPD License Division, 301 A.D.2d 390 (1st Dept 2003)
(confirming revocation of a rifle/shotgun permit where threatening letters written by the permit holder demonstrated a lack of good moral character)
Waskiewicz v. NYPD, 211 A.D.2d 603 (2d Dept 1995)
(upholding revocation where the permit holder was twice arrested for domestic violence and orders of protection were issued)
Simmons v. NYPD License Division, 35 A.D.3d 748 (2d Dept 2006)
(affirming revocation based on failure to report an arrest, a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, and display of a handgun during a confrontation with a neighbor)
VI. Standards of Review - What a Court Will Ask
• Arbitrary and capricious (CPLR 7803(3)) - the default standard for License Division denials made without a hearing: was the decision rational, explained, and grounded in the record? (Ward; Nagi)
• Substantial evidence (CPLR 7803(4)) - the more deferential standard applied when the determination followed a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing (Kozhar; Trimis)
• Mandamus to compel (CPLR 7803(1)) - available only where the petitioner has a clear legal right to performance of a ministerial, non-discretionary act (Harper; Berisha)
• People v. Nivar, 30 Misc.3d 952 (Sup Ct, Bronx County 2011) (explaining the full review pathway: administrative appeal, Article 78 in Supreme Court, appeal as of right to the Appellate Division, and permissive appeal to the Court of Appeals; a pistol licensing officer's discretion "is not unfettered, and the officials involved—including the NYPD licensing division —are bound by standards reviewable in a court of law")
Call or text +1-347-515-2504 or email info@nycccp.net
Address
244 Fifth Avenue, Suite B241, New York, NY 10001
info@nycccp.net
Phone
+1-347-515-2504
Law Office of Ethan A. Brecher, LLC
Attorney Advertising. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as legal advice.
Viewing this site or contacting the firm does not create
an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee
a similar outcome.