April 27, 2020

Seeking a "retiree service letter" authorizing the retiree to carry a weapon

A Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority [Authority] Retiree requested the Authority to issue a "retiree service letter" to him in order to assist him in obtaining a special pistol carrying permit. When the Authority declined to issue such a letter, Retiree brought a CPLR Article 78 action seeking a court order compelling the Authority to issue a "retiree service letter" to him. The Appellate Division dismissed Retiree's Article 78 petition.

Citing Matter of Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division ruled that the Authority's denial of Retiree's request was not arbitrary and capricious as:

1. Retiree conceded that he was not authorized to carry a firearm under Authority's policy at the time of his separation from employment as he surrendered his firearm beforehand due to an injury, and 

2. Retiree did not seek reinstatement of such authorization. 

Accordingly, said the court, Retiree had no right to issuance of the retiree service letter "since his authority to carry firearms had been revoked . . . and had not been restored at the time he retired".

Turning to Retiree's claim that the Authority's refusal to issue the letter requested violated his Second Amendment rights, the Appellate Division rejected this argument explaining that the Authority's decision did not preclude him from applying for a permit "under normal legal procedures." Further, opined the court, "[e]ven assuming there is a private right of action under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, [Retiree] cannot demonstrate that he met the qualification standards within one year of retirement" required to bring such an action.

Addressing Retiree's argument that the Authority's refusal to issue the retiree service letter constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court noted that Retiree conceded that his injury rendered him unable to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer and found "no factual basis to conclude that [the Authority's] decision was made in bad faith rather than as part of an across the board policy.

* See Matter of Laier v McGuire, 111 AD2d 43, affd 65 NY2d 904.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.