You are here: / / THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S...
, ,

THE DEFENDANT ARGUED A 2022 US SUPREME COURT RULING FINDING NEW YORK’S FIREARM LICENSING REQUIREMENT UNCONSITUTIONAL RENDERED THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON STATUTE TO WHICH HE PLED GUILTY IN 2016 UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT IN 2016 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department refused to consider a constitutional issue on appeal because the issue was not preserved. Defendant pled guilty in 2016. The defendant argued on appeal that a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling rendered the offense to which he pled guilty, Penal Law 265.03(3), unconstitutional. In order to preserve that issue for appeal, it must have been raised before the trial court in 2016. The US Supreme Court case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]), declared New York’s license requirement for carrying a loaded firearm in public unconstitutional. Defendant pled guilty to possessing a loaded weapon outside his home or business:

Defendant did not preserve his claim that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen …), or his related claim that the ineligibility of persons under 21 (such as himself at the time of the crime) to apply for licenses to carry firearms violates the Second Amendment. “This [preservation] requirement is no mere formalism, but ensures that the drastic step of striking duly enacted legislation will be taken not in a vacuum but only after the lower courts have had an opportunity to address the issue and the unconstitutionality of the challenged provision has been established” … .

“[D]efendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation” on the ground that a constitutional challenge to Penal Law § 265.03(3) would have been futile … . Here, “[a]lthough [Bruen] had not yet been decided, and trial counsel may have reasonably declined to challenge the [constitutionality of Penal Law § 265.03 (3)], defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as [any other] litigant” … . Defendant is essentially making the argument that an “appellant should not be penalized for his failure to anticipate the shape of things to come,” but the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected that argument … . This preservation principle applies to constitutional claims … .

As an alternative holding, we find that on the present record, defendant has failed to establish that Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional. People v Adames, 2023 NY Slip Op 02623, Fist Dept 5-16-23

Practice Point: Even if there has been no ruling on the constitutionality of a statute at the time the offense is before the trial court, in order to preserve the constitutional issue it must be raised in the trial court. Here defendant argued a 2022 US Supreme Court ruling finding New York’s firearm licensing requirement unconstitutional rendered the possession-of-a-weapon statute to which he pled guilty in 2016 unconstitutional. The First Department held the issue was not preserved because it was not raised in the trial court in 2016.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE EDGE OF A BATHTUB WHEN HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL A SHOWER-CURTAIN ROD; THE EDGE OF THE TUB WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
Reversible Error to Deny Defendant’s Request for a Jury Instruction on the Terretorial Jurisdiction Requirement
WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY A MOTION, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY; THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED, AS WAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Tenant Entitled to Attorney’s Fees After Successfully Defending Landlord’s Holdover Action—Discretion to Deny Attorney’s Fees Should Be Used Sparingly Because of the Purpose of the Controlling Statute
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).

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

A LOCAL LAW WHICH CURTAILED THE POWER OF AN ELECTED OFFICER TO ACT WAS DEEMED... PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE...