Aron v. Becker
Decision Date | 22 September 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 3:13–CV–0883.,3:13–CV–0883. |
Citation | 48 F.Supp.3d 347 |
Parties | Maria ARON, Plaintiff, v. Carl F. BECKER, in his official capacity as the pistol licensing officer of Delaware County, New York, in his official administrative capacity as the County Judge of Delaware County, and in his individual capacity; Christa Schafer, Clerk, Delaware County Board of Supervisors, New York, in her official and individual capacities; Joseph Eisel, Chairman, Delaware County Board of Supervisors, New York, in his official and individual capacities; Sharon O'Dell, County Clerk, Delaware County, New York, in her official and individual capacities; Marilyn L. Olsen, Pistol Clerk, Delaware County, New York, in her official and individual capacities; Richard Northrup, in his official capacity as Delaware County District Attorney; State of New York; Andrew Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor and Chief Executive Officer of the State of New York, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
Tatiana Neroni, Neroni Law Office, Delhi, NY, for Plaintiff.
James B. McGowan, New York State Department of Law, Albany, NY, Frank W. Miller, Bryan N. Georgiady, Office of Frank W. Miller, East Syracuse, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff Maria Aron (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against the Hon. Carl F. Becker, County Judge of Delaware County, New York (“Judge Becker”), the State of New York (“New York”), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (“Governor Cuomo”) (collectively “the State Defendants”); Christa Schafer, Clerk, Delaware County Board of Supervisors (“Schafer”), Joseph Eisel, Chairman, Delaware County Board of Supervisors (“Eisel”), Sharon O'Dell, County Clerk, Delaware County (“O'Dell”), Marilyn L. Olsen, Pistol Clerk, Delaware County (“Olsen”), and Richard Northrup, Delaware County District Attorney (“Northrup”) (collectively “the County Defendants”).1
In a convoluted Complaint, Plaintiff brings what she identifies as eight individual Causes of Action in connection with the events surrounding the denial of her pistol permit application. Currently pending are separate motions by the State Defendants and County Defendants to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, see dkt. # 13; dkt. # 17, and a motion by Plaintiff to supplement the Complaint. See dkt. # 23. For the reasons that follow the State Defendants' motion (dkt. # 13) is GRANTED, the County Defendants' motion (dkt. # 17) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint (dkt. # 23) is DENIED.
On June 28, 2012, Plaintiff had foot surgery which resulted in a period of disability requiring in-home care from April through September, and caused her to require a walker or crutches during movement. Compl. at ¶ 19. Also, Plaintiff's home is located in a remote region of Delaware County and is frequented by black bears, coyotes and coy dogs. Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20. In addition, burglaries had taken place in the area near Plaintiff's home, which caused Plaintiff to become concerned for her safety. Id. at ¶¶ 21–22. In July 2012 Plaintiff applied for a pistol permit.
Plaintiff was provided “a stack of papers to fill out including a questionnaire that indicated that Plaintiff had to provide four affidavits from people who knew Plaintiff for a number of years,” which she completed and filed with the Delaware County Pistol Clerk. Id. at ¶¶ 23–24. Plaintiff also had to be fingerprinted. Id. at ¶¶ 24–25.
After setting up an appointment to have her fingerprints taken, Plaintiff went to the Pistol Clerk's office located in the Delaware County Courthouse (“Courthouse”). She was told that the fingerprinting was done in the Delhi Village Police Department, located in a building behind the Courthouse “on the second floor, assessable through a non-descript door and not the main entrance to the Police Department or to the Village Hall.” Id. at ¶ 29. Once at the Police Department, Plaintiff was told that the person “who was supposed to conduct the fingerprinting did not show up.” Id. 31. Plaintiff felt “frustrated with the discourtesy and lack of accommodation in the pistol clerk's office as to appointments and notification of cancellations of fingerprinting.” Id. ¶ 32. “During the second fingerprinting appointment individual [sic ] responsible for fingerprinting simply did not show up.” Id. ¶ 34. On Plaintiff's third attempt, the fingerprinting was accomplished and Plaintiff paid the filing and fingerprinting fees “but received an extremely substandard service by the Pistol Clerk's office and its subcontractors in charge of fingerprinting and the money was never refunded.” Id. ¶ 36.
On June 18, 2013, Plaintiff received an “insultingly short ‘letter’ decision” from Judge Becker denying her pistol permit application. Id. at ¶ 39. The letter states:
Compl. Ex. 1.
Plaintiff contends that she “never engaged in any aggressive discussions with personnel of the County Court building.” Compl. ¶ 43. She does assert, however:
However, she also asserts:
Defendant Becker did not know Plaintiff personally when he ruled against her. It appears that Defendant Becker punished Plaintiff with denying to her her enumerated constitutional right to bear arms in her own home, for her own self-defense, because Plaintiff criticized the court/County Clerk's personnel and, through that personnel, Plaintiff criticized Defendant Becker himself for failure to establish proper policies in the courthouse to provide to her reasonable accommodations under the ADA.
At the end of June 2013, Plaintiff retained her current counsel, Tatiana Neroni, Esq. Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiff and Neroni went to the Courthouse to “retrace” Plaintiff's routes in her attempt to obtain a pistol permit, and to obtain “a copy of the records upon which Defendant Becker relied” in denying Plaintiff's pistol permit application. Id. ¶¶ 63–66. The two asked Defendant Marilyn Olsen, Delaware County Pistol Clerk, for the records but were told that she could not give them the records without permission from Judge Becker. Id. ¶ 67. Olson recommended that the two talk to County Court Clerk Kelly Sanfilippo. Id. ¶ 68. Sanfilippo supposedly went to speak with Judge Becker and, upon returning, indicated that Judge Becker directed Plaintiff or her counsel to file a Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request to gain access to the file. Id. ¶ 73; see N.Y. Pub. Off. L. § 84 et seq. Plaintiff's counsel filed a FOIL request that same day, but, on July, 9, 2013, received a letter from Defendant Christa Schafer, the Delaware County Board of Supervisors Record Access Officer denying this request. Compl. Ex. 3.3
After receiving the denial, Plaintiff's counsel spoke to the “substitute” Pistol Clerk about the FOIL request, who referred her to the County Clerk, Defendant Sharon O'Dell. Compl. ¶ 76. O'Dell referred counsel to County Attorney Porter Kirkwood who, O'Dell believed, directed that Plaintiff's FOIL requests be denied. Id. Plaintiff's counsel spoke with Kirkwood on July 16, 2013 in the Courthouse. Kirkwood “insisted that the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) is the only way of getting access to Plaintiff's file and that no other procedure to get access to the file exist[ed] in Delaware County, but did not deny that the denial of the FOIL requests was advised by him.” Id. Plaintiff then filed an administrative appeal of the denial of the FOIL request with Defendant Joseph Eisel, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Delaware County. Id.
The administrative appeal was denied by James E. Eisel, Sr., Records Access Appeals Officer of the Delaware County Board of Supervisors. Id. ¶ 76; Compl. ex. 5.4 Because Plaintiff felt she was being given a “run-around” by Delaware County officials, and due to her belief that she “was in continued danger from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial