8/8/2019 Kachalsky et al v Cacace et al - endorsed letter - 10-28-10

1/4

OCT-28-2010 16:05 P.02/04

\ -.>- .. ~ .., ~ - - - - ' ' l . , .

~ '

~ ~ _ . _t r - . d ~ ! " " "t;',, .'',"'.i D:\ ' t ~ - \~

. .. "' .. ' - ~ 1 :~ ,{":r ~ ) : . . . , . . . .

! . \ ....' - ~ " " " '... , ., ....,. ~ : " , , \.',-:' .', ..... ,... " : . ~ '..... . : , ~ - ~ -...::.";. . ' ) " . : . d _ ' STATE OF NEW YORKOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

LESLIE G. LEACHANDREW M. CUOMO ExecuTNE DEPurY AnORNEY GeNERALATIORNEY GENERAL

DIVISION OF STATE COUNSE!L

JUNE DUFFYASS1S-rANT ATiORNEY GENERAL IN C H A ~ G E

litIGATION BUREAU

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (212) 41S-BS53 / I / J A A ~ 1 i u

October 28, 2010 ~ .r:

NifrJ- ( { ( L i ~CWov-::."",., ' { P A ~ _~ ~ ' ~~ 1 ~ f dBy Facsimile Transmission .. (914) 390-4278 70 ().~ M.-t .....y tJ

j A ~ ~ ~ .Hon. Cathy Seibel United States District Court Judge 1 ~ ~ l > V 'OO u ~ ~__United States Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street

Cathy eibel, U.S. D .l White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Re: Alan Kachalsky, et at v. , Susan Cacace. et aL D a t e d : 110 CV 5413 (CS)

Dear Judge Seibel:

This office represents defendants the Hon. Susan Cacace and Hon. Jeffrey A. Cohen, judges ofthe County Court, Westchester County ("State Defendants"). This letter is submitted pursuant toyour Individual Practices 1 (A) and 2 (B)(i) to request permission to exceed the 25 page limit forState Defendants' legal memorandum of in support of their motion dismiss which will be servedFriday. November 5, 2010) to a total not to exceed 50 pages. Plaintiffs ' counsel advises theywould consent to an enlargement to 35 pages. State Defendants do no t believe that 35 pages willallow the State to.adequatelybriefthe significant jurisdictional issues as wel l as the substantialconstitutional question offirst impression presented by this case.

Plaintiffs Alan Kachalsky" Christina Nikoloy and the Second Amendment Foundation bring thisaction pursuant to 42 U .S.c. 1983 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against New YorkPenal L a ~ 400,00(2)(f), which requires an applicant for a license to carry a concealed handgunin public to demonstrate "proper cause". Plaintiffs assert that this "proper cause" requirementboth facially, and as applied, violates their "fundamental right . . . to keep and bear arms" underthe Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Complaint ~ ~ 10,27-29, and violates their"Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law". Complaint ~ 3 1 .

120 BROAOWAY, NEW YORK N.Y. 10271-0332 PHONE (212) 416-e.G10 FAA (212) 416-6075 NoT FOt'< SERVICE OF P A P ~ F l . 5HTIPJ/WWW.AG.NY.US

Case 7:10-cv-05413-CS Document 14 Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 4

http:///reader/full/HTIPJ/WWW.AG.NY.UShttp:///reader/full/HTIPJ/WWW.AG.NY.US

8/8/2019 Kachalsky et al v Cacace et al - endorsed letter - 10-28-10

2/4

OCT-28-2010 16:05 P.03/04

Page 2

This case presents complex questions regarding the applicability and scope of the Second Amendment right recognized by the Supreme Court in tw o recent cases, District o f Columbia v. Heller, _U.8._, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008). which held for the first time that th e Second Amendment protects some individual right to possess firearms, and McDonald v. City o f

,9hicag.o, _U.S . _7

130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which held for the first time that the Second Amendment right recognized in Helle r applies to the states. Whether, and ho w these cases affect New York's handgun licensing statute is o f critical importance to the State, and ha s implications beyond New York. The impact of Heller I McDonald is just beginning to work its wa y through the federal an d state judiciary an d there are numerous on-going cases across th e country raising Second Amendment challenges to state handgun statutes. Collectively, these cases will define the scope ofrights conferred by the Second Amendment. Moreover, given the interests at stake, it is a certainty that there will be appeals, and a reasonable prospect that these issues will again be presented to the Supreme Court_ Thus, Stat e Defendants request that they be allowed sufficient opportunity to present a careful and thorough examination o f the law that th e issues require.

In addition to the important Second Amendment issues presented by this case, the State Defendants contend that there are substantial threshold jurisdictional issues which must be presented in ou r initial papers, including:

Plaint iffs' constitutional cl aims are no t ripe; Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the claims set fonh in the complaint; Jurisdictional abstention is appropriate under Younger v. Harris: Jurisdictional abstention is appropriate pursuant to the Pullman and Burford

doctrines; and Subject matter jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine.

Ne w York State considers that it is o f vital importance that its papers in this case allow for a full and fair development of the issues presented. In working on our initial papers we have endeavored to present th e issues as succinctly as possible, bu t find that this crumot be accomplished within the 25 page limit provided in Your Honor's individual practices or the 35 pages suggested by Plaintiffs. In order to allow the State to fairly present its position we respectfully request that the Court enlarge th e page limit for the memorandum of la w in support o f the State Defendants motion to dismiss to up to 50 pages.

Thauk you for your attention to this matter. All parties will receive a copy of this letter

simultaneously by facsimile transmission.

120 BROADWAY. Ne w YORKN.Y. 10271-0332 PHONij; (212) 416-8610 FAX (212) 416-6075 "NOT FOF< SERVIce OF PAPERSHnp:/fWW\N.AG.NY _US

Case 7:10-cv-05413-CS Document 14 Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 4

http:///reader/full/Hnp:/fWW/N.AG.NYhttp:///reader/full/Hnp:/fWW/N.AG.NY

8/8/2019 Kachalsky et al v Cacace et al - endorsed letter - 10-28-10

3/4

8/8/2019 Kachalsky et al v Cacace et al - endorsed letter - 10-28-10

4/4

OCT-28-2010 1 6 : 0 5 P. 0 1 / 0 4

STATE OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE AnORNEY GENERAL ANDREW M. CUOMO

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

NUMBER OF PAGES: 4 (INCLUDING THIS PAGE)ATE: October 28,2010

TO! Hon. Judge Seibel FAX NO: (914) 390-4278

Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq.Assistant Coun ty Attorney, O f CounselWestchester County Attorney's OfficeAttorneys for Defendant County o f Westchester

(914) 995-3132

Vincent GelardiGelardi & RandazzoAttorneys Fo r Plaintiffs

(914) 253-0909

Alan Gura, Esq. (703) 997-7665Gura & P o s s e s s k y ~PLLCAttorneys for Plaintiffs

FROM: Anthony Tomari, Assistant Attorney General

ATTN:IF THERE IS A PROBI..EM WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT

NAME: Anthony J. Tomari, AssI stant Attorney GeneralPHONE NO.(212) 416..a553 FAX NO. (212,,> 416-6075 E-Mail: A n t h o n ~T o m a r ~ o a g . s t a t e . n ~ u s

CONFIDENTIAL

The ir'lformation contained in this facsimile is privileged and confidential ir'lformation Intended only for the us e of the individual orentity named above. If the reader of this message i$ no t the intended rec:lplent. or the employee or agent respoosible 10 deliver it tothe intended reCipient. yOIJ are hereby notified tt'lel any diss(tminaliol'\. dlstribuUon or copying of this Is strictly prohibited.

IF YOU HAVE REC[;IVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIA TEL Y NOTIFY THE SENDER BY TELEPHONE. THANK YOU.

120 BROADWAY, NE W YORK, NY 10271-0332 OA G 00 7 (12191;1)

Case 7:10-cv-05413-CS Document 14 Filed 10/29/10 Page 4 of 4