IN RE: Joseph CAMPISI (2022)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.) entered on or about December 8, 2020, denying the petition to annul respondent's determination, dated January 13, 2020, which denied petitioner's administrative appeal of the denial of his application to renew a special carry handgun license, and dismissing the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that the denial of petitioner's renewal application was not arbitrary and capricious.  In the absence of documentation substantiating the alleged threats to petitioner, respondent rationally concluded that petitioner's application did not establish “proper cause” within the meaning of Penal Law § 400.00, (38 RCNY 5–03;  see Matter of Baldea v. City of New York License Div. of the NYPD, 194 A.D.3d 634, 634, 144 N.Y.S.3d 567 [1st Dept. 2021];  Matter of Girandola v. Shea, 193 A.D.3d 543, 543, 142 N.Y.S.3d 354 [1st Dept. 2021]).

Petitioner also failed to carry his burden of establishing that respondent failed to follow precedent because other applications based on essentially the same facts were approved.  On the contrary, the record does not indicate that the other applications were similarly situated (see e.g. Matter of Coverco, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Economic Dev., 159 A.D.3d 1538, 1539, 70 N.Y.S.3d 443 [4th Dept. 2018]).  Moreover, there were material differences between petitioner's prior application and the renewal application, supporting respondent's denial of the renewal application.  In any event, although petitioner was previously granted a license, respondent is authorized to review renewal applications and determine whether each renewal application establishes that “proper cause” still exists (Penal Law § 400.00;  38 RCNY 5–03, 5–05;  see O'Brien v. Keegan, 87 N.Y.2d 436, 439, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 663 N.E.2d 316 [1996];  Baldea at 634, 144 N.Y.S.3d 567;  Girandola at 543, 142 N.Y.S.3d 354).