Panzella v. Sposato

Citation863 F.3d 210
Decision Date17 July 2017
Docket NumberAugust Term, 2016,Docket Nos. 15-2825-cv (Lead),15-2891-cv (XAP)
Parties Christine PANZELLA, Plaintiff–Appellee–Cross–Appellant v. Michael J. SPOSATO, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Unknown Sheriffs #2 Through 4, Nassau County, Nassau County Sheriff's Department, Robert Mastropieri, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Unknown Sheriff, #1 With Shield #116, Defendants–Appellants–Cross–Appellees
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

ROBERT JAMES LA REDDOLA, La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP, Garden City, New York, for PlaintiffAppelleeCross–Appellant

ROBERT F. VAN DER WAAG, Deputy County Attorney, for Carnell T. Foskey, Nassau County Attorney, Mineola, New York, for DefendantsAppellantsCross–Appellees

Before: Calabresi, Pooler, Circuit Judges, Vilardo,** District Judge.

GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:

This case arose after the County of Nassau, the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, and various officers (collectively, the "Defendants") refused to return Plaintiff Christine Panzella's longarms1 that had been seized in connection with a New York Family Court temporary order of protection issued against Panzella, even though the order was no longer in effect. Now before us are an appeal and a cross-appeal from the August 26, 2015 order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, J. ). The order granted Panzella an injunction that entitles her to a hearing to determine whether the County must return her longarms; it also gave the individual Defendants qualified immunity as to several claims, rejected various other claims by Panzella, and reserved ruling on two of Panzella's state-law claims until after the County affords her the hearing required by the district court's injunction.

For the reasons set forth below, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED to the extent that it grants Panzella an injunction. The appeal is DISMISSED in all other respects.

I. BACKGROUND

Because this case involves the interplay between New York Family Court orders of protection and various state and federal laws, we first set forth an overview of the relevant legal framework.

A. Article 8 of the New York Family Court Act

Under Article 8 of the New York Family Court Act, an individual may file a petition in the Family Court to obtain an order of protection against a family member. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act §§ 812, 821 –22. The Family Court may then, upon a showing of "good cause[,] ... issue a temporary order of protection" prohibiting the respondent from engaging in various types of conduct. Id. § 828.

The Family Court has on file a general "temporary order of protection" form, which lists conditions the court may impose upon a respondent. The form, reflecting § 842-a of the New York Family Court Act, provides a box the court can check to order the respondent to "[s]urrender any and all [firearms] owned or possessed" by the respondent, and to prohibit the respondent from "obtain[ing] any further ... firearms." App. at 591. The bottom of the form notifies the respondent that "[i]t is a federal crime to ... buy, possess or transfer a [firearm] while this Order remains in effect" (hereafter referred to as the "federal warning language"). Id. at 592. The federal warning language cites, inter alia , 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which states that it is unlawful for any person to possess firearms if that person:

is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

If the Family Court issues the order ex parte , the Court must hold a hearing regarding the surrender within fourteen days of the date the order was issued. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 842-a(7).

"Although Section 842-a authorizes the Family Court to order the confiscation of ... firearms, this provision does not authorize it to order their subsequent return."2 Dudek v. Nassau Cty. Sheriff's Dep't , 991 F.Supp.2d 402, 406 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ; accord Engel v. Engel , 24 A.D.3d 548, 549, 807 N.Y.S.2d 383 (2005) ; Blauman v. Blauman , 2 A.D.3d 727, 727–28, 769 N.Y.S.2d 584 (2003) ; Aloi v. Nassau Cty. Sheriff's Dep't , 9 Misc.3d 1050, 800 N.Y.S.2d 873, 874 (2005) ("Aloi II "). New York courts have described this as "a legislative glitch." Aloi II , 800 N.Y.S.2d at 873 (internal quotation marks omitted). One way to request the return of seized firearms "is to make an application to the officer that currently has custody of the weapons." Blauman , 2 A.D.3d at 728, 769 N.Y.S.2d 584. However, because "it can reasonably be anticipated that the officer that has custody of the firearms will refuse to return the firearms without a court order," a respondent's next step would typically be to start an Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court seeking an order directing the custodian of the firearms to return them. Aloi II , 800 N.Y.S.2d at 874.

The burden of deciding whether to return the firearms is thus principally put on the Supreme Court, "which does not have ... comparable knowledge or background on cases litigated in the Family Court." Id. The determination, moreover, is left "to a judge who is not familiar with the history of the family, the parties, and any alleged violence that may have transpired resulting in the issuance of the order of protection and seizure of said firearms." Id. at 875. All this, quite apart from the cumbersome nature of Article 78 proceedings. See Razzano , 765 F.Supp.2d at 188–89 (discussing the time and expense of Article 78 proceedings).

B. Factual Background

On June 22, 2012, Panzella's ex-husband filed a petition under Article 8 in the New York Family Court. That same day, a Court Attorney Referee in the Family Court issued a temporary order of protection against Panzella ("the Temporary Order"), to remain in effect until December 21, 2012. The Temporary Order was issued ex parte , and required that Panzella:

Refrain from assault, stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, strangulation, criminal obstruction of breathing or circulation, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct, forcible touching, intimidation, threats or any criminal offense against [Panzella's ex-husband].

App. at 50. There is no dispute that a hearing was not held in connection with the issuance of the Temporary Order.

The Temporary Order contained the federal warning language, informing Panzella that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) and other federal laws, "[i]t is a federal crime to ... buy, possess or transfer a [firearm] while this Order remains in effect." App. at 51. We note, however, that because the Temporary Order was issued ex parte , § 922(g) would not apply to Panzella because § 922(g) makes criminal the possession of a firearm only when an order of protection has been "issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(A) (emphasis added). The Family Court also did not include language requiring Panzella to surrender her firearms pursuant to § 842-a, or any other law.

On June 27, 2012, four Deputy Sheriffs from the Nassau County Sheriff's Department, under the supervision of Sheriff Michael Sposato and Deputy Sheriff Robert Mastropieri, served the Temporary Order on Panzella, and, upon learning that she had firearms and longarms in her home, confiscated them.

On November 27, 2012, after a hearing at which Panzella appeared, the Family Court extended the Temporary Order to January 22, 2013. Subsequently, on March 6, 2013, her ex-husband withdrew his petition. The Court, then, dismissed the entire protection proceeding.

On several occasions thereafter, Panzella requested the return of her longarms. Defendants have thus far denied her requests, and have informed her that because her longarms were seized in connection with a lawful order under Article 8 of the New York State Family Court Act, the County's "Retention Policy," App. at 947, prevents it from returning the longarms "until the Sheriff's Department is presented with an order directing the return of [the longarms] from a court of competent jurisdiction." Id. at 687.3

The County has explained that it "appl[ies] the § 842-a Retention Policy where, as here, (a) the Family Court Order includes [the federal warning language], but does not explicitly order the respondent to surrender the longarms, and (b) the Family Court Order has expired or has been dismissed or vacated." Id. at 949. Thus, the County has made clear that its policy is to retain any longarms confiscated in connection with such an order of protection until the County receives a court order directing their return—even if (1) the initial order did not explicitly require the confiscation pursuant to § 842-a, and (2) the order has expired or has been dismissed.

C. Procedural History

On October 11, 2013, Panzella filed a "Class Action Complaint"4 against Defendants, alleging: (1) violation of her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; (2) violation of her Second Amendment right to bear arms; and (3) a Monell claim against the County, Sheriff Sposato, and Deputy Sheriff Mastropieri. She also brought state law claims for replevin and conversion and sought punitive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • DeCastro v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 d6 Setembro d6 2017
  • Torcivia v. Suffolk Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 31 d0 Março d0 2019
  • Weinstein v. Krumpter
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 8 d1 Julho d1 2019
  • Fusco v. Cnty. of Nassau
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 30 d3 Setembro d3 2020
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT