Matter of S.W.M.

Supreme Court, Rensselaer County

Decided on May 4, 2026

Index No. XXXXX

Noel Mendez, J.

Applicant S.W.M. ("Applicant") filed with the Rensselaer County Pistol Permit Clerk's Office an application seeking a Carry Concealed Firearm and Semi-Automatic Rifle permit. The application was referred to this Court in its capacity as a licensing officer for Rensselaer County. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the application.

I. Background

In February of 2026, Applicant filed an application—sworn to and signed before a notary public under penalties of fine, imprisonment, and denial of said application for knowingly providing false information—seeking a Carry Concealed permit and a Semi-Automatic Rifle permit in the County of Rensselaer. In the section of the application asking whether an applicant has "ever been arrested, summoned, charged or indicted anywhere for any offense," including for Driving While Intoxicated but excluding traffic infractions, Applicant checked "Yes," disclosing a prior arrest in the state of Illinois for Battery and Unlawful Use of Weapons dating back to June of 1986.

The Court's in camera review of Applicant's criminal history—provided by law enforcement pursuant to the permit application—revealed that on May 25, 1986, the Danville Police Department in Illinois arrested Applicant for two counts of Battery and one count of Unlawful Use of Weapons, all deemed Class A Misdemeanors in that state at the date and time of the arrest. On June 2, 1986, Applicant received a $200 fine and a one-year conditional discharge for Unlawful Use of Weapons. The Battery charges were dismissed.

A review of Applicant's history in New York revealed that Applicant's daughter had commenced a Family Offense proceeding pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act against Applicant in Saratoga County in October of 2017. On October 6, 2017, Saratoga County Family Court issued an ex parte temporary "stay away" order of protection against Applicant and in favor of his daughter. On November 13, 2017, following an appearance by both parties, Family Court modified the temporary order of protection to require that Applicant "refrain from" committing unlawful acts against his daughter. Finally, on January 18, 2018, Family Court entered an Order of Disposition pursuant to a Stipulation signed by both Applicant and his daughter—and without an admission of guilt by Applicant—vacating the November 13 temporary order of protection and suspending judgment against Applicant for six months upon condition that he continue refraining from committing unlawful acts against his daughter.

On April 23, 2026, the Court held an inquest. Applicant gave sworn testimony as to both the Illinois arrest in 1986 and the matters leading to the commencement of the 2017 Family Offense Proceeding in Saratoga County.

With respect to the 1986 Illinois arrest, Applicant claimed he was 19 when he fired a BB gun at a motorcyclist from a car in which he was a passenger. According to Applicant, the motorcyclist pulled up behind the car while they were stopped and began honking and gesturing at Applicant and the driver. Applicant, mistakenly believing the motorcyclist to be a friend, decided to "prank" the person by shooting them with a BB gun he had used earlier in the day for target shooting. It was only after shooting the motorcyclist that Applicant discovered the person was in fact not the friend he had intended to prank.

Insofar as the 2017 Family Offense matter is concerned, Applicant testified that he had received word from his brother-in-law that Applicant's daughter—who at the time was in her mid-twenties and had moved out of the family home and into a living space owned by her employer's parents—was "in harm's way." Applicant went to visit his daughter, and upon learning of the circumstances, his daughter returned to live with Applicant. Applicant went back the next day to gather his daughter's possessions. Despite the circumstances, Applicant's daughter thereafter commenced a Family Offense proceeding in Saratoga County Family Court against him.

II. Applicable Law and Analysis

Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (b) states that no firearm license shall be issued except to an applicant "of good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others." Licensing officials have broad discretion in determining whether a person has the requisite "good moral character" to possess a firearm permit (see People v Santana, — AD3d —, —, 2026 NY Slip Op 02172, *2-*3 [3d Dept 2026]), as well as the broad discretion in resolving issues of fact and credibility (see Matter of Nicolau v Platkin, 246 AD3d 1315, 1316-17 [3d Dept 2026], quoting Matter of Rosenberg v Neary, 238 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2d Dept 2025]).

A properly disclosed arrest that occurred when an applicant was young is not necessarily fatal to a permit application, depending on the circumstances and whether or not the denial was ordered without a hearing (see e.g. Matter of Cambronne v Russo, 219 AD3d 484, 485 [2d Dept 2023]). However, the circumstances in Cambronne, where a 19-year-old applicant had been arrested for weapons possession even though the weapon in question belonged to a hitchhiker the [*2]applicant had picked up while driving, are quite different from the circumstances here, where Applicant, then a 19-year-old passenger in a vehicle, fired a BB gun at a motorist under the mistaken belief that the individual was a friend he intended to "prank."

The Court finds Applicant's prior conduct troubling but recognizes that Applicant was 19 at the time. Moreover, the Court cannot decide as a matter of law whether a BB gun is readily capable of causing serious physical injury (see People v Smith, — NY3d —, —, 2025 NY Slip Op 07082, *2 [2025]; see also Penal Law § 10.00 [10] ["'Serious physical injury' means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ"]), and Applicant was ultimately given a fine and a conditional discharge for his unlawful use of the BB gun, despite having also been arrested for two counts of Battery—charges that were dismissed.

The Court is likewise concerned with the fact that Applicant's daughter commenced a Family Offense proceeding against him back in 2017, but the matter was resolved in Family Court by way of signed consent, with the parties stipulating to a resolution wherein Applicant did not admit guilt but would refrain from committing unlawful conduct against his daughter for six months.

Given the circumstances, the Court sees no reason for denying Applicant's application pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 (1) (b). Accordingly, the Court grants the application.

To the extent Applicant requests an exemption from public records based on unwarranted harassment upon disclosure of his permit, the Court finds no compelling reason for granting the request that his permit be made private and not subject to public record pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 (5) (b) (iii). In contemplation of Applicant's conclusory testimony supporting said request, and the lack of any specific information in support in his written request, the Court finds Applicant's request for an exemption from public records to be null and void under Penal Law § 400.00 (5) (e) (i). Applicant's request for such relief is denied.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the permit application of S.W.M. for a Carry Concealed Firearm and Semi-Automatic Rifle permit is hereby GRANTED. Applicant's request to have his permit not be part of the public record is DENIED.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: May 4th, 2026

Troy, New York

Hon. Noel Mendez

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court