You are here: / / TOWN LAW PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW RE THE DISCHARGE SETBACK FOR A BOW AND...
, ,

TOWN LAW PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW RE THE DISCHARGE SETBACK FOR A BOW AND ARROW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town ordinance regulating the discharge setback for a bow and arrow was preempted by the conflicting provisions in Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) 11-0931:

The Town incorrectly contends that its ability to regulate the discharge setback of a bow and arrow is expressly authorized by Town Law § 130(27). That statute vests certain municipalities, including the Town, with the power to pass ordinances “prohibiting the discharge of firearms in areas in which such activity may be hazardous to the general public or nearby residents,” provided that “[t]hirty days prior to the adoption of any ordinance changing the five hundred foot rule, a notice must be sent to the regional supervisor of fish and game of the environmental conservation department, notifying him of such intention” (Town Law § 130[27]). However, that statute is premised upon a definition of the term “firearm” that does not include a bow and arrow.

The Town unpersuasively contends that it is free to define for itself the meaning of “firearm,” as used in Town Law § 130(27), so as to include “bow and arrow.” Although Town Law § 130(27) does not expressly define “firearm,” it can be readily inferred that the term is used in the same manner as in ECL 11-0931(4), which explicitly distinguishes between firearms and bows in setting forth discharge setback requirements (see ECL 11-0931[4][a][2]; see also 6 NYCRR 180.3[a] [defining “firearm” for purposes of ECL article 11]). Indeed, the mention of the “five hundred foot rule” in Town Law § 130(27) refers to the five-hundred-foot discharge setback required under ECL 11-0931(4). Construed in pari materia, these two statutory provisions employ the same terminology to regulate the same subject matter, and demonstrate that the Town may not regulate the discharge setback of a bow and arrow in a manner inconsistent with State law. Hunters for Deer, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

You might also like
Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence (Where the Methods or Materials of the Work Are Alleged to Be the Cause of the Injury) Explained
AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WHICH WAS NOT SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog
BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).
ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DISMISSAL IS NOT APPEALABLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY PROHIBITED FATHER FROM POSTING BLOGS DISPARAGING THE CHILD’S RELATIVES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE TOO BROAD IN THAT THEY WENT BEYOND THE NEEDS OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND OBEY COURT ORDERS WARRANTED STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE STATE HIGHWAY LAW MAY HAVE IMPOSED A DUTY ON THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK... THE ISSUE ON A PRIOR APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD...