COA decision: Osterweil v. Bartlett

7/27/2019 COA decision: Osterweil v. Bartlett

1/10

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 167Al f r ed G. Ost er wei l ,

Appel l ant ,v.

Geor ge R. Bar t l et t , I I I ,Respondent .

Dani el L. Schmut t er , f or appel l ant .Cl aude S. Pl at t on, f or r espondent .

PI GOTT, J . :

The Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Second

Ci r cui t , by cer t i f i ed quest i on, asks us t o deci de whet her an

appl i cant who owns a par t - t i me resi dence i n New York but makes

hi s per manent domi ci l e el sewher e i s el i gi bl e f or a New Yor k

- 1 -


2/10

- 2 - No. 167

handgun l i cense i n t he ci t y or count y wher e hi s par t - t i me

r esi dence i s l ocat ed. We answer t he cer t i f i ed quest i on i n t he

af f i r mat i ve, on t he basi s of t he r el evant st at ut e. As we expl ai n

bel ow, i t i s t her ef or e unnecessary f or us t o deci de t he

const i t ut i onal i ssues r ai sed by appel l ant .

I .

Appel l ant Al f r ed G. Ost er wei l , a resi dent of Summi t ,

New Yor k, a t own i n Schohar i e County, appl i ed on May 21, 2008 f or

a New Yor k St at e pi st ol / r evol ver l i cense pur suant t o Penal Law

400. 00. The Schohar i e Count y Sher i f f i ni t i at ed t he r equi r ed

backgr ound i nvest i gat i ons ( see Penal Law 400. 00 [ 4] ) . On J une

25, i n the cour se of corr espondence on an unr el at ed mat t er ,

Ost er wei l i nf ormed t he Sher i f f t hat he had bought a home i n

Loui si ana and t hat he i nt ended t o "make t hat st at e my pr i mary

r esi dence, " whi l e keepi ng "a vacat i on pr oper t y her e i n Schohar i e

Count y. " Ost er wei l asked whet her he woul d st i l l be el i gi bl e f or

a handgun l i cense.

Ost er wei l ' s l et t er r ai sed an i mpor t ant quest i on. Penal

Law 400 ( 3) ( a) pr ovi des t hat " [ a] ppl i cat i ons shal l be made and

r enewed, i n t he case of a l i cense t o car r y or possess a pi st ol or

r evol ver , t o t he l i censi ng of f i cer i n t he ci t y or count y, as t he

case may be, wher e t he appl i cant r esi des, i s pr i nci pal l y empl oyed

or has hi s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness as mer chant or

st orekeeper " ( emphasi s added) .

At t he hear t of Ost er wei l ' s quer y i s t he di st i nct i on

- 2 -


3/10

- 3 - No. 167

bet ween r esi dence and domi ci l e. Gener al l y, est abl i shi ng

r esi dence " t ur ns on whet her [ one] has a si gni f i cant connect i on

wi t h some l ocal i t y i n t he St at e as t he r esul t of l i vi ng t her e f or

some l engt h of t i me dur i ng the cour se of a year" ( Ant one v

Gener al Motors Corp. , Bui ck Motor Di v. , 64 NY2d 20, 30 [ 1984] ) ,

wher eas " [ e] st abl i shment of a domi ci l e i n a [ pl ace] gener al l y

r equi r es a physi cal pr esence i n t he [ pl ace] and an i nt ent i on t o

make t he [ pl ace] a per manent home" ( i d. at 30) , i . e. i nt ent t o

r emai n t her e f or t he f or eseeabl e f ut ur e. I t f ol l ows t hat an

i ndi vi dual can have more than one resi dence, but onl y one

domi ci l e ( see i d. at 28) . Ost er wei l mai nt ai ned a r esi dence i n

Schohar i e Count y, but coul d no l onger cl ai m i t as hi s domi ci l e.

Ther ef or e, i f a New Yor k domi ci l e i s r equi r ed f or a handgun

l i cense, t he st at ut e makes hi m i nel i gi bl e.

The Sher i f f f or war ded Ost er wei l ' s appl i cat i on and quer y

t o r espondent Geor ge R. Bar t l et t , I I I , Schohar i e Count y Cour t

J udge and al so t he count y' s l i censi ng of f i cer . Ost er wei l

submi t t ed an af f i davi t t o J udge Bar t l et t , st at i ng t hat he and hi s

wi f e cont i nued t o pl ay a r ol e i n "soci al , pol i t i cal and communi t y

af f ai r s" i n Summi t , even t hough t hey no l onger made thei r pr i mary

r esi dence t her e. He al so ci t ed t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t ' s

r ecent deci si on i n Di st r i ct of Col umbi a v Hel l er ( 554 US 570

[ 2008] ) , i n whi ch t he Supr eme Cour t st r uck down a Di st r i ct of

Col umbi a l aw banni ng t he possessi on of handguns i n t he home,

hol di ng t hat " t he absol ut e pr ohi bi t i on of handguns hel d and used

- 3 -


4/10

- 4 - No. 167

f or sel f - def ense i n t he home" i s unconst i t ut i onal under t he

Second Amendment ( i d. at 636; see al so McDonal d v Ci t y of

Chi cago, 130 S Ct 3020 [ 2010] ) .

I n May 2009, J udge Bar t l et t deni ed Ost er wei l ' s

appl i cat i on f or a handgun l i cense, r el yi ng on Penal Law 400 ( 3)

( a) and an Appel l ate Di vi si on deci si on, Mahoney v Lewi s ( 199 AD2d

734 [ 3d Dept 1993] ) , whi ch hel d t hat "as used i n t hi s st at ut e t he

t er m r esi dence i s equi val ent t o domi ci l e" ( i d. at 735) . J udge

Bar t l et t f ur t her r ul ed t hat such a domi ci l e requi r ement was

const i t ut i onal , under Hel l er , as a l awf ul r egul at or y measur e.

I I .

I n J ul y 2009, Ost er wei l commenced t hi s act i on pur suant

t o 42 USC 1983 i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Nor t her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k, al l egi ng t hat J udge Bar t l et t had

vi ol at ed hi s Second Amendment r i ght t o keep and bear arms and hi s

Four t eent h Amendment r i ght t o equal pr otect i on, by denyi ng hi s

l i cense appl i cat i on on t he gr ound of hi s domi ci l e. He sought an

i nj unct i on or der i ng t he St at e t o gr ant hi s appl i cat i on. J udge

Bar t l et t , r epr esent ed by t he At t or ney Gener al ' s of f i ce, and

Ost er wei l each moved f or summar y j udgment .

On May 20, 2011, t he Di st r i ct Cour t gr ant ed J udge

Bar t l et t summary j udgment , r ej ect i ng Ost erwei l ' s Second Amendment

and Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms ( see Ost erwei l v Bar t l et t , 819 F

Supp 2d 72, 85- 87 [ NDNY 2011] ) . On appeal , bef or e t he Uni t ed

St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Second Ci r cui t , Ost er wei l

- 4 -


5/10

- 5 - No. 167

r ei t er at ed hi s posi t i on t hat a domi ci l e r equi r ement f or handgun

possessi on i s unconst i t ut i onal . The At t or ney Gener al now ar gued

t hat Penal Law 400 ( 3) ( a) does not i n f act cont ai n a domi ci l e

r equi r ement , obvi at i ng t he need t o r each t he const i t ut i onal

i ssues. On J anuar y 29, 2013, t he Second Ci r cui t , i n an opi ni on

by ret i r ed Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t J ust i ce Sandr a Day

O' Connor , cer t i f i ed t he f ol l owi ng quest i on t o us:

" I s an appl i cant who owns a part - t i mer esi dence i n New York but makes hi s per manentdomi ci l e el sewher e el i gi bl e f or a New Yor k

handgun l i cense i n t he ci t y or count y wher ehi s par t - t i me r esi dence i s l ocat ed?"( Ost er wei l v Bar t l et t , 706 F3d 139, 145 [ 2dCi r 2013] ) .

We accept ed t he cer t i f i ed quest i on, pur suant t o sect i on

500. 27 of our Rul es of Pract i ce ( 20 NY3d 1058 [ 2013] ) , and now

answer i t i n t he af f i r mat i ve.

I I I .

I n t hi s unusual case, bot h appel l ant and r espondent

woul d have us answer t he cer t i f i ed quest i on i n t he af f i r mat i ve.

However , r espondent asks us t o answer t he quest i on pur el y on t he

basi s of t he st at ut e, wher eas appel l ant ur ges us t o r ul e t hat t he

l aw cannot r equi r e domi ci l e f or handgun l i cense el i gi bi l i t y

because t hat woul d be unconst i t ut i onal .

We t ake a st r ai ght f or war d appr oach t o t hi s di sput e. I f

Penal Law 400 ( 3) ( a) does not r equi r e domi ci l e, t hen t her e i s

no need t o deci de t he const i t ut i onal i t y of a hypot het i cal st at ut e

t hat r equi r es domi ci l e. The quest i on concer ni ng t he meani ng of

- 5 -


6/10

- 6 - No. 167

t he st at ut e at i ssue t he quest i on cer t i f i ed t o us must be

answer ed pr i or t o any quest i on concer ni ng i t s const i t ut i onal

val i di t y. Thi s i s not a case i n whi ch we ar e f aced wi t h an

ambi guous st at ut e r equi r i ng us t o f avor an i nt er pr et at i on t hat

r ender s i t const i t ut i onal over const r uct i ons t hat woul d

i nval i dat e i t .

I V.

Penal Law 400 ( 3) ( a) st at es t hat appl i cat i ons f or a

l i cense t o car r y a pi st ol or r evol ver "shal l be made and r enewed

. . . t o t he l i censi ng of f i cer i n t he ci t y or count y, as t he case

may be, wher e t he appl i cant r esi des, i s pr i nci pal l y empl oyed or

has hi s pr i nci pal pl ace of busi ness as mer chant or st or ekeeper . "

The appl i cant ' s r esi dence i s r ef er r ed t o i n t he cont ext of

del i neat i ng t he pr ocedur e wher eby an i ndi vi dual f i l es an

appl i cat i on f or a l i cense. The appl i cant i s i nst r uct ed t o appl y

t o t he l i censi ng of f i cer i n t he ci t y or count y wher e he r esi des

( or i s pr i nci pal l y empl oyed, et c. ) . The pl ai n l anguage of t he

st at ut e i s not consi st ent wi t h t he t heor y that t he l aw r equi r es

an appl i cant t o est abl i sh domi ci l e as an el i gi bi l i t y r equi r ement .

Were i t so, we woul d expect t o see t he manner of proof of

domi ci l e set out i n t he st at ut e.

Mor eover , t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of t he st at ut es t hat

under l ay Penal 400 evi nces an i nt ent t o ensure t hat an

appl i cant f or a handgun l i cense appl i es i n hi s pl ace of

r esi dence, r at her t han an i nt ent t o l i mi t l i censes t o appl i cant s

- 6 -


7/10

- 7 - No. 167

who make t hei r domi ci l e i n New Yor k. The r esi dency l anguage was

added t o t he Penal Law by Chapt er 792 of t he Laws of 1931.

For mer Penal Law 1897 was amended by addi ng a subdi vi si on, 9- a,

whi ch r ead as f ol l ows:

"No l i cense shal l be i ssued by t he pol i cecommi ssi oner of t he ci t y of New Yor k exceptt o a r esi dent of t hat ci t y. Out si de of t heci t y of New Yor k, no l i cense shal l be i ssuedby a j udge or j ust i ce of a cour t of r ecor dexcept t o a r esi dent of t he count y i n whi cht he of f i ce of such j udge or j ust i ce i sl ocat ed. A l i cense may be i ssued, however ,t o a qual i f i ed per son pr i nci pal l y empl oyed i n

such ci t y or county and to a merchant orst or ekeeper havi ng hi s pr i nci pal pl ace ofbusi ness i n such ci t y or count y" ( L 1931, ch.792, 4; see 1931 McKi nney' s Sessi on Laws ofNY at 2390) .

At t he begi nni ng of September 1931, t he mont h i n whi ch

t hi s l aw was passed, Gover nor Roosevel t wr ot e t o t he Legi sl at ur e,

si t t i ng i n ext r aor di nar y sessi on, at t achi ng a l et t er he had

r ecei ved f r om t he Pol i ce Commi ssi oner of New Yor k Ci t y. The

Pol i ce Commi ssi oner r ecommended t hat t hen Penal Law 1897 be

amended t o ensur e "[ t ] hat per mi t s t o car r y a pi st ol upon t he

person or t o be kept upon t he pr emi ses be i ssued onl y by t he

pol i ce commi ssi oner or chi ef of pol i ce of any ci t y i n t hi s St at e

and i n t he r ur al communi t i es by t he sher i f f of t he count y"

( Let t er f r om Edwar d P. Mul r ooney, New Yor k Ci t y Pol i ce

Commi ssi oner , t o Gover nor Fr ankl i n D. Roosevel t [ Aug 29, 1931] ,

r epr i nt ed i n Publ i c Paper s of Gover nor Frankl i n D. Roosevel t ,

1931 at 184 [ 1937] ) . Commi ss i oner Mul r ooney spel l ed out t he

r easons:

- 7 -


8/10

- 8 - No. 167

"Many per sons of unsavory reput at i on, orwi t h cr i mi nal r ecor ds, ar e appr ehended i n[ New Yor k Ci t y] and are f ound i n t hepossessi on of pi st ol per mi t s i ssued by a

j udge or j ust i ce of a cour t of r ecor d i not her count i es of t he St at e.I n [ New Yor k Ci t y] per mi t s are i ssued by

t he pol i ce commi ssi oner onl y af t er t heappl i cant i s f i nger pr i nt ed, phot ogr aphed andi nvest i gat ed, wher eas i n ot her count i es oft he St at e, per mi t s ar e i ssued wi t h l i t t l e orno i nvest i gat i on . . . " ( i d. ) .

Summar i zi ng t he i ssue, Governor Roosevel t wr ot e t hat

"[ i ] t i s a f act t hat t he pr esent i ssui ng of r evol ver per mi t s by

j udges anywhere i n t he St at e i s wor ki ng badl y, and permi t s must

be more car ef ul l y guarded" ( Message t o t he Legi sl at ur e [ Sept ember

1, 1931] , r epr i nt ed i n Publ i c Paper s of Gover nor Frankl i n D.

Roosevel t , 1931 at 183) .

Thi s hi st or y i ndi cat es t hat t he r esi dence l anguage was

i nt r oduced t o pr event New Yor k Ci t y resi dent s f r om obt ai ni ng

handgun per mi t s i n count i es wher e, at t he t i me, i nvest i gat i ons of

appl i cant s wer e much l ess t hor ough t han i n t he Ci t y. I t i s

t her ef or e evi dent t hat t he l aw was or i gi nal l y desi gned t o ensur e

t hat l i censes wer e obt ai ned wher e appl i cant s r esi ded, and t o

di scour age "f or um- shoppi ng, " r at her t han to excl ude cer t ai n

appl i cant s f r om qual i f yi ng at al l .

The cor r espondi ng r esi dence l anguage i n t oday' s Penal

Law 400 ( 3) ( a) i s der i ved f r om f ormer Penal Law 1903, whi ch

was added i n 1963 ( L 1963, ch. 136, 8; see 1963 McKi nney' s

Sessi on Laws of NY at 155) , and t hen adopt ed i n t he revi sed Penal

Law pr ovi si ons of 1965 ( L 1965, ch. 1030; see 1965 McKi nney' s

- 8 -


9/10

- 9 - No. 167

Sessi on Laws of NY at 1691) . Appel l ant poi nt s to no l egi sl at i ve

hi st or y f r om t he 1960s suggest i ng t hat t he r el evant i nt ent of t he

Legi sl at ur e was di f f er ent t hen f r om what i t had been i n 1931. We

concl ude t hat t her e was no i nt ent by the Legi sl at ur e t o excl ude

appl i cant s on t he basi s of domi ci l e.

Fi nal l y, and most concl usi vel y, Penal Law 400. 00

i t sel f cont empl at es t hat l i censes may be i ssued t o i ndi vi dual s

who do not make t hei r domi ci l e i n New Yor k. When a l i cense t o

car r y or possess a pi st ol or r evol ver "i s i ssued t o an al i en, or

t o a per son not a ci t i zen of and usual l y a r esi dent i n t he st at e,

t he l i censi ng of f i cer shal l st at e i n t he l i cense t he par t i cul ar

r eason f or t he i ssuance and t he names of t he per sons cer t i f yi ng

t o t he good char act er of t he appl i cant " ( Penal Law 400. 00 [ 7] ) .

Si nce a handgun l i cense may be i ssued, under t he st atut e, t o a

per son who i s " not . . . usual l y a r esi dent " i n New Yor k St at e,

i t i s cl ear t hat t her e i s no r equi r ement of domi ci l e.

V.

Because we hol d t hat Penal Law 400. 00 (3) ( a) does

not pr ecl ude an i ndi vi dual who owns a part - t i me r esi dence i n New

Yor k but makes hi s permanent domi ci l e i n another st at e f r om

appl yi ng f or a New Yor k handgun l i cense, we have no occasi on t o

deci de whet her a cont r ary l aw woul d be unconst i t ut i onal .

Accor di ngl y, t he cer t i f i ed quest i on shoul d be answer ed

i n t he af f i r mat i ve.

- 9 -


10/10

- 10 - No. 167

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fol l owi ng cer t i f i cat i on of a quest i on by t he Uni t ed St at es Cour tof Appeal s f or t he Second Ci r cui t and accept ance of t he quest i on

by thi s Cour t pur suant t o sect i on 500. 27 of t he Rul es of Pr act i ceof t he New Yor k St at e Cour t of Appeal s, and af t er hear i ngar gument by counsel f or t he par t i es and consi der at i on of t hebr i ef s and t he r ecor d submi t t ed, cer t i f i ed quest i on answer ed i nt he af f i r mat i ve. Opi ni on by J udge Pi got t . Chi ef J udge Li ppmanand J udges Gr af f eo, Read, Smi t h, Ri ver a and Abdus- Sal aam concur .

Deci ded Oct ober 15, 2013

- 10 -

COA decision: Osterweil v. Bartlett

Documents

Transcript of COA decision: Osterweil v. Bartlett