govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-1_22-cv-00986-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_________________________________________________ 
 
IVAN ANTONYUK; COREY JOHNSON; ALFRED  
TERRILLE; JOSEPH MANN; LESLIE LEMAN; and  
LAWRENCE SLOANE,      1:22-CV-0986 
         (GTS/CFH) 
    Plaintiffs, 
          
v.         
         
STEVEN A. NIGRELLI, in his Official Capacity as Acting  
Superintendent of the New York State Police; JUDGE  
MATTHEW J. DORAN, in His Official Capacity as  
Licensing-Official of Onondaga County; WILLIAM  
FITZPATRICK, in His Official Capacity as the Onondaga  
County District Attorney; EUGENE CONWAY, in his  
Official Capacity as the Sheriff of Onondaga County;  
JOSEPH CECILE, in his Official Capacity as the Chief of  
Police of Syracuse; P. DAVID SOARES, in his Official  
Capacity as the District Attorney of Albany County;  
GREGORY OAKES, in his Official Capacity as the District  
Attorney of Oswego County; DON HILTON, in his Official  
Capacity as the Sheriff of Oswego County; and JOSEPH  
STANZIONE, in his Official Capacity as the District 
Attorney of Greene County, 
 
    Defendants. 
_________________________________________________ 
 
APPEARANCES:     OF COUNSEL: 
 
STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC   STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH, ESQ. 
   Counsel for Plaintiff s     
P.O. Box 428 
Olive Branch, MS 38654  
      
WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.    ROBERT J. OLSON, ESQ. 
   Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs      
370 Maple Avenue W, Suite 4 
Vienna, VA 22180  
 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 1 of 9
2 
 
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES    MICHAEL G. McCARTIN, ESQ. 
Attorney General for the State of New York  JAMES M. THOMPSON, ESQ. 
   Counsel for the State Defendants   Assistants Attorney General 
The Capitol      ALEXANDRIA TWINEM, ESQ. 
Albany, NY 12224     Assistant Solicitor General 
 
BARCLAY DAMON LLP    EDWARD G. MELVIN, ESQ. 
   Counsel for Oswego County Defendants  JOHN JOSEPH PELLIGRA, ESQ. 
Barclay Damon Tower 
125 East Jefferson Street 
Syracuse, NY 13202 
 
HON. SUSAN R. KATZOFF    TODD M. LONG, ESQ. 
Corporation Counsel for the City of Syracuse DANIELLE R. SMITH, ESQ. 
   Counsel for City of Syracuse Defendants  DARIENN BALIN, ESQ. 
233 East Washington Street    Assistants Corporation Counsel 
300 City Hall 
Syracuse, NY 13202 
 
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF LAW  JOHN E. HEISLER, JR. 
   Counsel for Onondaga County Defendants  Deputy County Attorney 
John H. Mulroy Civic Center, 10th Floor 
421 Montgomery Street 
Syracuse, NY 13202 
 
HON. EDWARD I. KAPLAN   EDWARD I. HAPLAN, ESQ. 
Greene County Attorney 
   Counsel for Defendant Stanzione 
411 Main Street, Suite 443 
Catskill, NY 12414 
 
HON. EUGENIA K. CONDON   JOSEPH A. COTICCHIO, ESQ. 
Albany County Attorney    Assistant County Attorney 
   Counsel for Defendant Soares 
112 State Street, Room 600 
Albany, NY 12207 
 
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge 
 
DECISION and ORDER
 
 
 Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action by the six above-captioned 
individuals (“Plaintiffs”) against the nine above-captioned employees of the State of New York 
or one of its counties or cities (“Defendants”), are the following two motions: (1) the motion of 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 2 of 9
3 
 
Defendants Don Hilton and Gregory Oakes (“the Oswego County Defendants”) to dismiss 
Plaintiffs’ claims against them based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 12(b)(1); and (2) the motion of Defendants Steven A. Nigrelli and Matthew J. Doran (“the 
State Defendants”)1 to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them based on a lack of subject-matter 
jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).  (Dkt. Nos. 46, 50.)  For the reasons set forth below, 
these motions are granted in part and denied in part. 
I. OSWEGO COUNTY DEFENDANTS 
 Generally, in their motion, the Oswego County Defendants argue that Plaintiff Mann (the 
sole Plaintiff asserting claims against them) lacks standing to assert his claims against them, 
because he has failed to allege that he has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, an injury 
in fact by virtue of a credible threat of prosecution by the Oswego County Defendants under the 
Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”).  (Dkt. No. 46, Attach. 2.)  The Court rejects this 
argument with regard to Plaintiff Mann’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(b),” “2.(c),” “2.(f),” 
“2.(n),” “2.(p),” and “2.(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA, for the reasons 
stated in Parts III.A.2.b., III.A.2.c., III.A.2.f., III.A.2.n., III.A.2.p., III.A.2.s., and III.A.3. of its 
Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 25-34, 47-50, 57-63, 68-80, 82, 85.)  Otherwise, 
the Court accepts this argument for the reasons stated in Part III.A.2. of its Decision of 
November 7, 2022.  (Id. at 24-80.) 
 To the reasons set forth in its Decision of November 7, 2022, the Court adds the 
following analysis.  At the very least, circumstances render the threatened enforcement of the 
 
1  Originally, this motion was filed on behalf of New York State Governor Kathleen 
Hochul, New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen, and Defendant Doran.  (Dkt. 
No. 46.)  However, on November 7, 2022, the Court dismissed Governor Hochul as a party to 
this action.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 85-87, 182.)  Furthermore, on October 28, 2022, the Court 
substituted Defendant Nigrelli for Kevin P. Bruen pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).  (Text 
Notice filed on 10/26/2022; Dkt. No. 74; Docket Sheet Entry on 10/28/2022.) 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 3 of 9
4 
 
CCIA against Defendants sufficiently imminent.  As the Court explained in its Part III.A.2. of its 
Decision of November 7, 2022, Plaintiff Mann has sworn a sufficiently concrete and imminent 
intent to violate Paragraphs “2.(b),” “2(c),” “2(f),” “2(n),” and “2(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA.  
(Dkt. No. 78.)  This intent is not likely to go unnoticed given (1) the brazen nature of Plaintiff 
Mann’s defiance, (2) the fact that at least one of his congregants is a member of local law 
enforcement, and (3) the fact of the recent publicization of the CCIA (including its sensitive-
location provision) in New York State by both Governor Kathleen Hochul and Defendant 
Nigrelli.  Moreover, on July 20, 2022, the Sheriff of Oswego County (where Plaintiff Mann’s 
church is located), Defendant Hilton, publicly announced, “Under the new law, taking a legally 
licensed firearm into any sensitive area – such as a . . . church . . . is a felony punishable by up to 
1 1/3 to 4 years in prison.”  (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 9, at ¶ 24 [Mann Decl.] [emphasis added].)  
Similarly, on August 31, 2022, Defendant Hilton publicly announced, “If you own a firearm 
please be aware of these new laws as they will effect [sic] all gun owners whether we agree with 
them or not.” (Id.)  Finally, as the District Attorney of Oswego County, Defendant Oakes has 
been charged with the specific duty to enforce the CCIA, which duty he is not likely to ignore, 
particularly in light of both the stated policy of Defendant Hilton and the stated policy of the 
New York State Police.   
 Simply stated, when a citizen complaint is made to the Oswego County Sheriff’s 
Department (and it will be, given the nature of local law enforcement in rural Oswego County), 
one of Sheriff Hilton’s deputies will arrive on the scene and hand Plaintiff Mann a legal 
document (likely in exchange for his handgun), whether that document should come in the form 
of a summons, a desk appearance ticket or a mere contraband receipt form.  Plaintiff Mann need 
not wait for that legal document in order to challenge this patently unconstitutional law.   
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 4 of 9
5 
 
II. STATE DEFENDANTS 
 Turning to the motion of the State Defendants, generally, in their motion, the State 
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their claims against them, because they 
have failed to allege that they have suffered, or are at substantial risk of suffering, an injury in 
fact by virtue of a credible threat of enforcement of the CCIA by the State Defendants.  (Dkt. No. 
50, Attach. 1.)  The Court rejects this argument with regard to Plaintiff Sloane’s claims 
challenging Sections 1 and 5 of the CCIA, for the reasons stated in Parts III.A.1. III.A.3. of its 
Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 18-24 ,82, 85.)  The Court rejects this argument 
with regard to Plaintiff Mann’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(b),” “2.(c),” “2.(f),” “2.(n),” 
“2.(p),” and “2.(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA, for the reasons stated 
in Parts III.A.2.b., III.A.2.c., III.A.2.f., III.A.2.n., III.A.2.p., III.A.2.s., and III.A.3. of its 
Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 25-34, 47-50, 57-63, 68-80, 82, 85.)  The Court 
rejects this argument with regard to Plaintiff Johnson’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(d)” 
and “2.(o)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA, for the reasons stated in Parts 
III.A.2.d., III.A.2.o., and III.A.3. of its Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Id. at 82, 85.)  The 
Court rejects this argument with regard to Plaintiff Terrille’s claims challenging Paragraphs 
“2.(d),” “2.(n),” “2.(o),” “2.(p),” and “2.(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the 
CCIA, for the reasons stated in Parts III.A.2.d., III.A.2.n., III.A.2.o., III.A.2.p., III.A.2.s., and 
III.A.3. of its Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 34-45, 57-80, 82-85.)  The Court 
rejects this argument with regard to Plaintiff Leman’s claims challenging Paragraph “2.(d)” of 
Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA, for the reasons stated in Parts III.A.2.d. and 
III.A.3. of its Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 34-45, 82-85.)  The Court rejects 
this argument with regard to Plaintiff Antonyuk’s claims challenging Section 5 of the CCIA, for 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 5 of 9
6 
 
the reasons stated in Part III.A.3. of its Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Dkt. No. 78, at 34-45, 
82-85.)   Otherwise, the Court accepts this argument for the reasons stated in Part III.A.2. of its 
Decision of November 7, 2022.  (Id. at 24-80.) 
 Again, to the reasons set forth in its Decision of November 7, 2022, the Court adds the 
following analysis.  Defendant Nigrelli’s threat of August 31, 2022, was not “directed to the 
public in general” (as the State Defendants argue) but was expressly directed to the specific 
group of current license holders that was intent on violating Section 4 of the CCIA (i.e., five of 
the six Plaintiffs in this action):  
We ensured that the lawful, responsible gun owners have the tools now to 
remain compliant with the law.  For those who choose to violate this law . 
. . I don't have to spell it out more than this. We'll have zero tolerance. If 
you violate this law, you will be arrested. Simple as that. Because the New 
York State Troopers are standing ready to do our job to ensure . . . all laws 
are enforced. 
 
(Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 9, at ¶ 22, n.5 [Mann Decl.] [emphasis added].)  Based on Defendant 
Nigerelli’s shift in focus from “lawful, responsible gun owners” (i..e., license holders) who 
choose “to remain compliant with the law” to “those who choose to violate this law,” it is 
difficult to understand how the State Defendants could earnestly argue that Defendant Nigrelli 
meant to address non-license holders who might choose to grab a handgun and run into a 
sensitive or restricted location.  Defendant Nigrelli was talking to five of the six Plaintiffs (and 
those license holders like them, who were considering violating the law). 
 As for the propriety of Onondaga County Court Judge Matthew J. Doran as a Defendant, 
Defendant Doran admits he is a “‘licensing officer’ for Onondaga County described in N.Y. 
Penal Law § 265.00(10) and, as such, is responsible for the receipt and investigation of carry 
license applications, along with the issuance or denial of carry licenses.” (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 11 
[Plfs.’ Compl.]; Dkt. No. 35, at ¶ 11 [Doran Answer].) More importantly, Defendant Doran 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 6 of 9
7 
 
admits he is “the proper party with respect to Plaintiffs’ challenge to the CCIA's requirement and 
definition of ‘good moral character,’ along with its associated requirements of an in-person 
interview, disclosure of a list of friends and family, provision of four ‘character references,’ and 
provision of three years of social media history.” (Id.) Indeed, the State Defendants concede that 
“redressability might be present with respect to [Defendant] Doran.” (Dkt. No. 48, at 32-33.)  In 
any event, Plaintiff Sloane need not complete a license application for two independent reasons: 
(1) the evidence (including the State Defendants’ concession) that Defendant Doran would 
inevitably deny that application due to Sloane’s sworn refusal to complete several portions of it;2 
and (2) the evidence that Sloane has adduced of the year-plus wait time for even a (newly 
demanded) in-person interview, which similarly renders his application futile: law-abiding, 
responsible citizens need not incur such a lengthy wait time in order to exercise their inalienable 
Second Amendment right to public carry.  As the Supreme Court presciently noted less than five 
months ago, “[B]ecause any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule 
out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in 
processing license applications . . . deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”  NYSRPA 
v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138, n.9 (2022) (emphasis added). 
 These last two facts clearly distinguish Plaintiff Sloane’s claims from those asserted by 
Richard Cooper, Michael Rebmann and Edward Garrett in Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. 
Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106, 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of claims asserted by 
Plaintiffs Cooper, Rebmann and Garrett, because they had not yet applied for licenses and had 
 
2  The Court notes that (again, contrary to the State Defendants’ characterization of the 
admissible record evidence presented to the Court), Plaintiff Sloane does in fact have social-
media accounts for the prior three years, none of which he intends to disclose to a licensing 
officer.  (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 4, at ¶¶ 6-9 [Sloane Decl.].)  Whether or not any of the accounts is 
anonymous is irrelevant because Section 1 of the CCIA is not limited to “anonymous social-
media accounts.”   
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 7 of 9
8 
 
not made a substantial showing that their application would have been futile), abrogated on 
other grounds, NYSRPA v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).   
 ACCORDINGLY, it is  
 ORDERED that the Oswego County Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims 
against them based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Dkt. 
No. 46) is DENIED in part with regard to the claims challenging those Sections of the CCIA 
that are specified above in this Decision and Order, and otherwise GRANTED; and it is further 
 ORDERED that the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them 
based on a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Dkt. No. 50) is 
DENIED in part with regard to the claims challenging those Sections of the CCIA that are 
specified above in this Decision and Order, and otherwise GRANTED; and it is further 
 ORDERED that all claims against these four Defendants are DISMISSED without 
prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) EXCEPT for the 
following claims, which SURVIVE these Defendants’ motions: 
  (1) Plaintiff Sloane’s claims challenging Sections 1 and 5 of the CCIA, 
 (2) Plaintiff Mann’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(b),” “2.(c),” “2.(f),” 
“2.(n),” “2.(p),” and “2.(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA; 
  (3) Plaintiff Johnson’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(d)” and “2.(o)” of 
Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA; 
 (4) Plaintiff Terrille’s claims challenging Paragraphs “2.(d),” “2.(n),” “2.(o),” 
“2.(p),” and “2.(s)” of Section 4 of the CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA; 
 (5) Plaintiff Leman’s claims challenging Paragraph “2.(f)” of Section 4 of the 
CCIA, and Section 5 of the CCIA; and 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 8 of 9
9 
 
  (6) Plaintiff Antonyuk’s claims challenging Section 5 of the CCIA. 
Dated: November 17, 2022 
 Syracuse, New York 
 
 
Case 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE     Document 85     Filed 11/17/22     Page 9 of 9

Passage view · GavelSight