People v Sande (2010 NY Slip Op 50241(U))

People v Sande

2010 NY Slip Op 50241(U) [26 Misc 3d 1224(A)]

Decided on February 17, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County

D'Emic, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

The defendant, a former probationer, petitions the court for a certificate of relief from civil disabilities pursuant to Correction Law §702. He is requesting the certificate "for the limited purpose of obtaining a NYS firearms permit relative to my collection of antique firearms."

The Department of Probation opposes the application stating that, although the defendant is eligible since he only has one felony conviction, it "strongly recommends against the applicant being issued a Certificate or Relief for purposes of gun ownership/possession." A prior application for this relief was denied on April 6, 1998.

On October 29, 1991, the defendant was sentenced to five years probation on his plea to Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree. Although he was favorably [*2]discharged from probation on November 9, 1993, he later pled guilty in Suffolk County to Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.

On July 17, 1998, he was sentenced to three years probation from which he was favorably discharged on March 5, 2001.

Admirably, this defendant has maintained steady employment, is raising a family and has refrained from drug abuse since that time. Although he has one felony conviction, two misdemeanor convictions, two violations and an infraction, he has stayed out of trouble for over twenty years.

Nevertheless, the court is at a loss to understand how the possession of an antique gun collection is consistent with the defendant's rehabilitation or in the public interest, as set forth in the defendant's application in support of this application. Correction Law §702(2) only allows a court to grant a certificate of relief to an eligible offender on those two conditions. In this case, the defendant has rebuilt his life without a firearms permit and his rehabilitation seems complete. In addition, under the circumstances presented, the granting of the requested relief is inconsistent with the public interest.