PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered March 18, 2019, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant has not preserved his claim that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause on the ground that the police applicant failed to present evidence that defendant lacked a license for his guns (see People v. Rodriguez, 235 A.D.3d 541, 542, 228 N.Y.S.3d 437 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 43 N.Y.3d 1011, 234 N.Y.S.3d 799, 261 N.E.3d 934 [2025]).  We decline to review his unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.  The warrant application did not require proof of lack of a license because that is not an element of the criminal weapon possession offenses.  The license exemption is codified in Penal Law § 265.20(a)(3)—a provision that is separate from the provisions that criminalize unlawful weapon possession (see e.g. Penal Law §§ 265.02, 262.03, 265.04).  Thus, the license exemption in Penal Law 265.20 “operates as a proviso that need not be pleaded but may be raised by the accused as a bar to prosecution or a defense at trial” (People v. David, 41 N.Y.3d 90, 96, 207 N.Y.S.3d 456, 231 N.E.3d 402 [2023] [internal quotation marks omitted];  People v. Santana, 7 N.Y.3d 234, 236, 818 N.Y.S.2d 842, 851 N.E.2d 1193 [2006]).  The United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387 (2022) does not affect the probable cause analysis because “Bruen did not change the probabilities that govern whether an ordinarily prudent and cautious person would believe that unlawful conduct was occurring” (People v. Wall, 237 A.D.3d 648, 649, 233 N.Y.S.3d 282 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 985, 241 N.Y.S.3d 135, 267 N.E.3d 1204 [2025]).