HUNTERS FOR DEER INC v. TOWN OF SMITHTOWN (2022)

OPINION OF THE COURT

 MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.  The only question properly before us on this appeal is whether Town Law § 130(27) authorizes defendant Town of Smithtown to regulate the discharge of “bows” pursuant to its authority to regulate the discharge of “firearms” under that statute.^*  Town Law § 130(27) specifically authorizes certain towns to prohibit the discharge of “firearms” through ordinances that may be more restrictive than other laws where such discharge may be hazardous to the general public, and requires that notice be provided to the Department of Environmental Conservation of any ordinance “changing the five hundred foot [setback] rule” (Town Law § 130[27];  see Environmental Conservation Law § 11–0931[4][a][2]).  While the term “firearm” is undefined in the Town Law, construing it in accordance with its “usual and commonly understood meaning” (Yaniveth R. v. LTD Realty Co., 27 N.Y.3d 186, 192, 32 N.Y.S.3d 10, 51 N.E.3d 521 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), the term “firearm” does not encompass a “bow” (see Black's Law Dictionary [4th ed rev 1968];  Ballentine's Law Dictionary [3rd ed 1969];  see also Penal Law § 265.00[3];  ECL § 11–0931[4][a][2]), and we are unpersuaded that the Legislature intended otherwise when it used the term in the Town Law. Accordingly, Town Law § 130(27) does not authorize Smithtown to regulate the discharge of bows.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We have no occasion to pass on whether, irrespective of Town Law § 130(27), a town has the authority to regulate the setback distance for the discharge of bows pursuant to its municipal home rule authority to regulate public safety, or whether the Environmental Conservation Law preempts such regulation (see N.Y. Const art IX, § 2[c][10];  Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][a][12]).  In its arguments before Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, Smithtown effectively conceded that, absent specific authority under Town Law § 130(27), the Town Code provision would be invalid.  Thus, Smithtown cannot now assert a contrary argument before us.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Cannataro concur.  Judge Troutman took no part.