A New York appellate court has overturned a decision denying Matthew Asprea's application for a concealed carry pistol permit. The ruling, issued on June 4, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, found that the denial was based on an incomplete investigation into the character references provided by Asprea. This case is significant as it addresses the standards for issuing pistol permits and the responsibilities of both applicants and licensing officers.
The court's decision stems from Asprea's application for a concealed carry permit submitted in Ulster County in 2024. In his application, Asprea disclosed a past arrest, but two of his character references were unaware of this history. Consequently, they answered negatively when asked if Asprea had ever been arrested. The licensing officer, Sara W. McGinty, interpreted these responses as falsehoods, leading her to conclude that Asprea had a willingness to commit perjury. As a result, she denied his application, prompting Asprea to challenge the decision.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Matthew Asprea, the petitioner, and Sara W. McGinty, the acting justice of the Supreme Court, who served as the respondent. Asprea's application for a concealed carry pistol permit was initially denied based on concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by his character references. The case reached the appellate court after Asprea filed a proceeding under CPLR article 78, seeking to annul McGinty's determination.
Asprea's application required him to provide character references who could attest to his moral character and confirm that he had not engaged in any illegal activities. However, the references' lack of knowledge about Asprea's arrest history led to conflicting answers on the application. This discrepancy became the focal point of McGinty's decision to deny the permit.
The Ruling
The court ruled that McGinty's denial of Asprea's application lacked a rational basis. The judges, including Powers, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Corcoran, and Ryba, found that the licensing officer's interpretation of the character references' answers was flawed. They stated, "Petitioner's arrest history does not render an answer to this question in the negative a falsehood but, instead, indicates that the character reference did not know this detail."
Furthermore, the court noted that Asprea had not committed perjury, as he had been forthcoming about his arrest history in his application. The judges emphasized that the character references were not required to have full knowledge of Asprea's past, and the licensing officer had an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation rather than rely solely on the questionnaire responses.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the process of obtaining a pistol permit in New York. It underscores the importance of thorough investigations by licensing officers and clarifies that applicants are not responsible for ensuring their references are fully informed about their pasts. The court's decision also highlights the need for licensing authorities to apply the correct legal standards when evaluating applications.
The case sets a precedent that could influence future applications for concealed carry permits, particularly in how character references are assessed. It may encourage more applicants to be open about their pasts, knowing that incomplete knowledge from references should not automatically disqualify them.
What's Next
The court annulled McGinty's determination without costs and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision. While Asprea's permit application was not immediately granted, the ruling opens the door for a more thorough review of his application. It remains to be seen whether McGinty will reconsider the application or if Asprea will pursue further legal action if the outcome is not favorable.