Cases

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MAE A. D’AGOSTINO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiff challenged the denial of his application for a permit to possess a pistol pursuant to New York State’s statutory mechanism by which individuals apply for and may be granted permits to carry or possess firearms. On *21February 7,

OPINION OF THE COURT Pigott, J. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by certified question, asks us to decide whether an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere is eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located. We answer the certified question in the affirmative, on the basis

Certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument. Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Alfred Osterweil applied for a handgun license in May 2008. Following the directions of New York Penal Law § 400.00(3)(a), he applied for a license “in the city or county ... where [he] resides.” 1 His house in Schoharie County, New York, was then his primary residence and domicile, but while his a

O’CONNOR, Supreme Court Justice (Ret.): This case asks us to evaluate the constitutionality of certain aspects of New York’s handgun licensing regime. As we explain, we believe we should not reach that question before certifying a predicate question of state law to the New York Court of Appeals. I Appellant Alfred Osterweil appli

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MAE A. D’AGOSTINO, District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff pro se commenced this action challenging New York’s statutory mecha*75nism by which individuals apply for permits to carry or possess firearms. Plaintiff urges that the denial of his handgun permit application violated his rights u

KATZMANN, Chief Judge: This case raises important, yet unanswered, questions of New York State law. Specifically, its resolution turns on whether a governing-law provision that states that the contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of *151the State of New York, in a contract not consummated pursuant to New York General Obligations Law s

Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Krogmann, J.), entered October 26, 2015 in Warren County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to annul a determination of respondent Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals finding that the use of a premises belonging to respondent No

Matter of L.L. (2024 NY Slip Op 24161) [*1] Matter of L.L. 2024 NY Slip Op 24161 Decided on May 30, 2024 Supreme Court, Albany County Platkin, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant t

Matter of L.L. (2024 NY Slip Op 24161) [*1] Matter of L.L. 2024 NY Slip Op 24161 Decided on May 30, 2024 Supreme Court, Albany County Platkin, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant t

POOLER, Circuit Judge: *231Jose Jimenez pled guilty to possession of ammunition after having been dishonorably discharged from the military, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). Having properly objected at the district court

17-287-cr United States v. Jimenez 17‐287‐cr United States v. Jimenez 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2017 6 7 (Argued: March 8, 2018 Decided: July 10, 2018) 8 9 Docket No. 17‐287‐cr 10 11

CHIN, Circuit Judge: This case asks us to consider the interplay between two provisions in a fire insurance policy. One requires the insured to file suit on the policy within two years. The second requires the insured, when seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work “as soon as reasona

14-1021-cv Ministers & Missionaries v. Snow UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _______________ August Term, 2014 (Argued: January 12, 2015 Decided: March 5, 2015) Docket No. 14‐1021‐cv _________

State of New York OPINION Court of Appeals This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 65 The People &c., Respondent, v. Ramon Cabrera, Appellant. Barbara Zolot, for appellant. Joshua P. Weiss, for respondent. Hon. Letitia James, New York State Attorney

State of New York OPINION Court of Appeals This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. No. 62 The People &c., Respondent, v. Sebastian Telfair, Appellant. Barry Krinsky, Esq., for appellant. Jean M. Joyce, for respondent. Hon. Letitia James, New York State Att

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: On remand from the Supreme Court, we are tasked with determining “whether [New York’s General Business Law § ] 518 is a valid commercial speech regulation under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343,

CALABRESI, Circuit Judge: This case presents a significant and unresolved issue of New York copyright law: Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? Because this question is important, its answer is unclear, and its resolution controls the present appeal, we reserve decision

14-4101 Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________________ August Term 2014 (Argued: June 2, 2015 Decided: November 17, 2015)

FARRELL, Senior Judge: A jury found appellant Ronald Johnson guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon (ADW), threats, and related firearms offenses, and appellant Sheldon Hargrove guilty of carrying a pistol without a license (CPWL) and other firearms offenses. Hargrove, a retired Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) police officer, contends mainly that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow him to raise the statutory def