Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARL PALADINO,
10 ELLICOTT SQUARE COURT CORPORATION
d/b/a ELLICOTT DEVELOPMENT CO.,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.:__________

vs. COMPLAINT
Jury Trial Demanded
KEVIN P. BRUERN,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE NEW YORK STATE POLICE,
JOHN C. GARCIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
SHERIFF OF ERIE COUNTY,
JOHN GRAMAGLIA , IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
BUFFALO POLICE HEADQUARTERS,

Defendant.

The above-captioned Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), on their own behalf and on behalf of all

similarly situated New Yorkers, by and through the undersigned attorneys, file this

Complaint against the above-captioned Defendants (“Defendants”), in their official

capacities as state and local officials responsible under the law of the State of New

York (“New York” or “State”) for enforcing the State’s laws and regulations governing

the public carrying of firearms. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief in

relation to Section 5 of Chapter 371 of the Laws of New York 2022 (“Section 5”), which

is codified at N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d.

Section 5 is one of the most expansive infringements on the constitutional right

to bear arms for self-defense ever adopted by a state legislature. Section 5 acts to

preclude all law-abiding New Yorkers from carrying any firearm, regardless of
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 21

whether such a firearm is carried concealed or openly, on all private property in New

York State without the prior permission of the owner or lessee of each property.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Section 5’s prohibition against Handgun

Carry Licensees1 from carrying their concealed handguns on private property without

the prior permission of such property’s owner/lessee is unconstitutional under the

First, Second, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs also seek an injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing Section 5

against Handgun Carry Licensees carrying concealed handguns.

In support of their Complaint against Defendants, Plaintiffs hereby allege as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees

“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. This

amendment guarantees the People the right to “carry weapons in case of

confrontation” for the “lawful purpose of self-defense,” District of Columbia v. Heller,

554 U.S. 570, 592, 630 (2008)

2. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (“Bruen”), the

Supreme Court reaffirmed this constitutional right to self-defense. A true and

accurate copy of the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2022, Slip Opinion in Bruen is attached

hereto as Exhibit A.

1 This term is defined at ¶ 23, infra.

2
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 3 of 21

3. In Bruen, the Supreme Court specifically held that “ordinary, law-

abiding citizens have a . . . right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.” Slip

Opinion at p.1.

4. The Supreme Court also held that “[t]he constitutional right to bear

arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely

different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Id. at p.62.

5. In defiance of the constitutional guarantee to armed self-defense

provided by the Second Amendment, New York recently adopted Penal Law 265.01-

d. See N.Y. L 2022, ch 371, § 5. A true and accurate copy of Chapter 371 of the New

York Laws of 2022 (“Chapter 371”) is attached here to as Exhibit B. A true and

accurate of the Sponsor’s Memorandum of the bill which became Chapter 371 is

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

6. While Chapter 371 is replete with provisions that unconstitutionally

infringe on New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights, this lawsuit specifically

challenges Section 5 of Chapter 371, which constitutes the grossest infringement on

the right to self-defense among the many infringements contained in Chapter 371.

7. Specifically, Section 5 unconstitutionally presumptively prohibits

Handgun Carry Licensees from carrying a concealed handgun on all private property

in the State.

8. In effect, Section 5 limits New Yorkers’ constitutional right to armed

self-defense so that this right is only effective when New Yorkers are on their own

property or certain public properties (roads, sidewalks, etc.).

3
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 4 of 21

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim under

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343, 2202.

10. Plaintiffs seek remedies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, and 2202; 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988; and/or Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

11. This suit is authorized by law to redress deprivations under color of state

law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First, Second, Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and for declaratory and

injunctive relief in relation to the same.

12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and/or (c) as, as

the various acts complained will occur, and various Plaintiffs and Defendants are

located, within the Western District of New York.

PARTIES

13. Plaintiff Carl Paladino (“Paladino) is a citizen of the United States and

a resident and citizen of the State of New York, with a residence at 272 Potters Road,

Buffalo, New York, 14220.

14. Paladino is the holder of New York State Handgun Carry License issued

pursuant to New York law.

4
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 5 of 21

15. Paladino wishes and intends to lawfully carry a concealed firearm on

private property in New York State, and would do so, if Section 5 had not been

enacted.

16. Plaintiff 10 Ellicott Square Court Corporation d/b/a Ellicott

Development Co. (“Ellicott Development”) is a domestic corporation in the business

of owning and operating private properties in New York State, including but not

limited to, the Ellicott Square Building, which is located at 295 Main Street, Buffalo,

New York 14203.

17. Ellicott Development wishes to allow Handgun Carry Licensees to carry

their concealed firearms at its properties, including at the Ellicott Square Building,

without having to post signage or otherwise expressly give licensees permission to do

so.

18. Paladino is a shareholder and chairman of Ellicott Development.

19. Defendant Kevin P. Bruen is the Superintendent of the New York State

Police. As Superintendent, he exercises, delegates, or supervises all the powers and

duties of the New York Division of State Police, which is responsible for executing

and enforcing New York’s laws and regulations governing the carrying of firearms in

public, including Section 5.

20. Defendant John C. Garcia is the Sheriff of Erie County, New York. As

Erie County Sheriff, he exercises, delegates, or supervises all the powers and duties

of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office, which is responsible for executing and enforcing

5
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 6 of 21

New York’s laws and regulations governing the carrying of firearms in public,

including Section 5, within the territorial boundaries of Erie County.

21. Defendant Joseph A. Gramaglia is the Commissioner of Police for the

City of Buffalo, New York. As Police Commissioner he exercises, delegates, or

supervises all the powers and duties of the City of Buffalo, which is responsible for

executing and enforcing New York’s laws and regulations governing the carrying of

firearms in public, including Section 5, within the territorial boundaries of the City

of Buffalo.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

22. New York law generally forbids any person to “possess[ ] any firearm,”

N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1), without first obtaining “a license therefor,” id. §

265.20(a)(3). Violating this ban is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of

$1,000 or less or up to a year in prison. Id. §§ 70.15(1), 80.05(1), 265.01. Possessing a

loaded firearm without a license is a class C felony, punishable by a fine of up to

$5,000 or between one- and fifteen-years imprisonment. Id. §§ 70.00(2)(c) & (3)(b),

80.00(1), 265.03.

23. An ordinary member of the general public who wishes to carry a

handgun outside the home for purposes of self-protection can only do so if he or she

obtains a license to “have and carry [a handgun] concealed” (a “Handgun Carry

License”) pursuant to Section 400.00(2)(f) of New York’s Penal Law.

24. No license is available to authorize the open carrying of firearms within

New York State.

6
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 7 of 21

25. On July 1, 2022, New York State adopted Chapter 371 as law after the

bill which became Chapter 371 passed both houses of the New York State Legislature

and was signed by the Governor.

26. Section 4 of Chapter 371 enumerates certain “sensitive location[s]”

wherein the carrying of firearms is prohibited, including schools and polling places.

Unless one of the limited exceptions applies (e.g. for retired police officers, security

guards, etc.), an individual, including a Handgun Carry Licensee, is criminally

prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm at these “sensitive locations.” A

violation of section 4 of Chapter 371 is a class E felony.

27. Section 5 of Chapter 371 provides that:

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a

restricted location when such person possesses a firearm,
rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private
property where such person knows or reasonably should
know that the owner or lessee of such property has not
permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous
signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or
shotguns on their property is permitted or has otherwise
given express consent.

28. A violation of Section 5 is a class E felony.

29. Just like Section 4 of Chapter 371, Section 5 only contains limited

exceptions to this prohibition against the carrying of firearms on a so-called

“restricted location.”

7
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 8 of 21

30. None of these exceptions to Section 5 are applicable to Paladino, other

than the exception that Section 5 would not apply to Paladino when he is lawfully

engaged in hunting activity.

31. Specifically, Section 5 does not include any exception for Handgun Carry

Licensees.

32. Paladino expressly brings this action to vindicate his constitutional

right to carry a concealed handgun when not engaged in such hunting activities.

33. In Section 5, New York attempts to nullify the Supreme Court’s decision

in Bruen.

34. As a result of Bruen, all New Yorker’s with duly issued Handgun Carry

Licenses were permitted to carry their concealed handguns publicly for self-defense

purposes.

35. Section 5 acts to prohibit Handgun Carry Licensees from carrying their

concealed handguns on private property for self-defense purposes.

36. This statutory enactment creates, by state action, a requirement that a

lawfully licensed individual carrying a concealed weapon must first obtain the

consent of strangers as a prerequisite to exercise this constitutional right. No other

constitutional right requires that such prior consent be obtained from another citizen

before such constitutional right can be exercised.

37. While Section 5’s prohibition against armed self-defense on private

property is not absolute, such a prohibition is the “default setting” of this law.

8
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 9 of 21

38. In order for a Handgun Carry Licensee to be able to legally carry his or

her concealed firearm on private property, Section 5 requires that the owner or lessee

of such private property post “clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the

carrying of firearms . . . on their property is permitted or otherwise give[] express

consent.” See N.Y. L 2022, ch 371, § 5(1).

39. The operation of Section 5 thus transforms a constitutionally

guaranteed right into a right that New Yorkers may only exercise after they receive

express permission to do so from another.

40. Indeed, the practical effect of Section 5 is to subject New Yorkers’ Second

Amendment rights to a case-by-case public referendum by property owners/lessees.

41. Under Section 5, a property owner or lessee that does not wish to limit

the right of Handgun Carry Licensees to carry a concealed firearm is compelled to

expressly state so, either by posting signage or otherwise.

42. These elements of Section 5 impermissibly treat New Yorkers’ Second

Amendment rights as second-class constitutional rights.

43. It would not be constitutional for New York State to presumptively strip

New Yorkers of their other constitutional rights whenever they are on private

property.

44. For example, it would not be constitutional for New York State to

prohibit New Yorkers from advocating for lawful political change on private property

unless the owner/lessee of such property posted signage or otherwise gave New

Yorkers express permission to do so.

9
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 10 of 21

45. Nor would it not be constitutional for New York State to require that a

property owner/lessee post signage or otherwise expressly grant permission before

New Yorkers could advocate for lawful political change on such private property.

46. Likewise, it is not constitutional for New York State to presumptively

strip New Yorkers of their right to armed self-defense on all private property in the

state in the absence of such signage or express permission.

47. Nor is it constitutional for New York State to compel private property

owners/lessees to post signage or otherwise expressly grant permission before New

Yorkers are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights on such private

property.

48. The Second Amendment forbids New York the power to decide, on a

case-by-case basis, whether or not a Handgun Carry Licensee may carry a concealed

weapon on private property unless such private property is a “sensitive place.” See

Bruen, Slip Opinion at p.14; see also Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (“[T]he very enumeration

of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of

Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really

worth insisting upon.”).

49. By adopting Section 5, New York has interpreted Second Amendment

jurisprudence in a patently absurd manner. Section 5 attempts to avoid the Second

Amendment’s prohibition against limiting Second Amendment rights on a case-by-

case basis with a prohibition that universally limits Second Amendment rights unless

10
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 11 of 21

a property owner/lessee—on a case-by-case basis—takes specific action to restore

New Yorkers’ Second Amendment rights on such private property.

50. When the Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional to limit Second

Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis, it did so solely in the context of

invalidating restriction on Second Amendment rights. No fair reading of Bruen or

Heller would lead a court to conclude that a universal restriction on Second

Amendment rights—like Section 5 purports to impose—is constitutional simply

because this restriction is not imposed on a case-by-case basis, but is, instead, subject

to a case-by-case exceptions.

51. Instead, Second Amendment jurisprudence requires that restrictions on

New Yorkers’ rights to armed self-defense be specifically enumerated, with each such

enumerated restriction being traceable to historical precedent restricting this right

in a similar way. See Bruen, Slip Opinion at p.10.

52. Moreover, isolated historical precedents cannot provide a basis for such

restrictions. Instead, Second Amendment rights can only be restricted in a manner

similar to historical precedents that were widely accepted in the United States at the

time of the ratification of the Second and/or Fourteenth Amendment. See Bruen, Slip

Opinion at p.57.

53. Specifically, as to where New Yorkers can exercise their Second

Amendment rights, New York may only limit the right to armed self-defense in

“sensitive places,” such as schools and polling places. See Bruen, Slip Opinion at p.21.

11
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 12 of 21

54. Knowing that a state can only limit Second Amendment rights in such

“sensitive places,” the New York State Legislature specifically delineated what it

considers to be such “sensitive locations” in Section 4 of Chapter 371. See N.Y. L

2022, ch 371, § 4 (codified at Penal L. § 265.01-e).

55. However, in Section 5, the New York State Legislature

unconstitutionally created a second category of places where Second Amendment

rights are limited—a so-called “restricted location”—which Section 5 defines as all

private property in the state lacking the aforementioned signage.

56. Unless an exception applies, carrying a concealed weapon in a “sensitive

location” or a “restricted location” subjects a Handgun Carry Licensee to the exact

same criminal penalties, to wit: it is a class E felony, punishable by up to four years

of incarceration, to violate either Section 4 or Section 5 of Chapter 371.

57. There is no valid historical precedent for such an expansive limit on New

Yorkers’ right to armed self-defense, especially as Section 5 acts to limit these Second

Amendment rights in locations New York implicitly acknowledges are not “sensitive

places” by virtue of such locations not being enumerated in Section 4 of Chapter 371.

58. Accordingly, Section 5 is an impermissible restriction on New Yorkers’

Second Amendment rights because it restricts the right to armed self-defense in

locations that both historical precedent and the New York State Legislature’s own

actions exclude from the definition of “sensitive places.”

12
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 13 of 21

59. For example, it would clearly be unconstitutional for New York to

specifically limit Second Amendment rights inside a McDonalds because a fast-food

restaurant is not a “sensitive place.”

60. However, Section 5 acts to limit New Yorkers’ Second Amendment

rights inside a McDonalds because Section 5 applies to all private property.

61. This is not to say that a McDonalds couldn’t impose some limits on

exercise of constitutional rights on its own property. Individuals exercising their

right to freedom of speech can be asked to leave if they are being disruptive, for

example. But the State cannot, in the first instance, presumptively ban constitutional

conduct on all private property as the default position unless the private property

owner or lessee posts signage allowing the exercise of that right.

62. It is patently unconstitutional to treat Second Amendment rights in the

way those rights are treated by Section 5, just as it would be patently unconstitutional

to treat First Amendment rights in this way.

63. New York cannot impose criminal penalties on Handgun Carry

Licensees carrying a concealed handgun on private property without the prior

permission of such property’s owner/lessee with any more than it criminalize the

speaking of praying on private property without such property’s prior permission.

64. Because of Section 5’s restrictions, Paladino, and all other Handgun

Carry Licensees, will be unable to lawfully carry a concealed handgun for the purpose

of self-defense on private property without first receiving the express permission to

do so from such property’s owner/lessee.

13
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 14 of 21

65. Because of Section 5’s restrictions, Handgun Carry Licensees will be

unable to lawfully carry a concealed handgun for the purpose of self-defense on

property owned by Ellicott Development unless Ellicott Development posts signage

or otherwise gives such Handgun Carry Licensees express permission to do so.

66. Under current law, an applicant for a Handgun Carry License “must

convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among

other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness,

and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’” See Bruen, Slip Opinion

at p.3 (citing N.Y. Penal Code §§400.00[1][a]–[n]).

67. Chapter 371 further strengthens this licensing regime by, among other

things, requiring Handgun Carry Licensees to complete additional training with

respect to firearm safety and use.

68. New York has thus established a licensing regime, which in the

judgement of the New York State Legislature, is sufficient to ensure that Handgun

Carry Licensees have the character, temperament, and training necessary to safely

carry a concealed firearm without imposing a risk to public safety.

COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action for Depravation of Plaintiffs’ Rights
under U.S. CONST. amends. II and XIV

69. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding

paragraphs.

70. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep

and bear Arms” secures to law-abiding, responsible, adult citizens the fundamental

14
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 15 of 21

constitutional right to bear firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense. U.S.

Const. amend. II.

71. This Second Amendment right to bear firearms in public applies to

States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

72. New York can only generally restrict this right (1) by imposing a

constitutionally valid licensing regime that individuals must first pass through before

they are allowed to carry a firearm in public; (2) by imposing a ban on concealed carry,

but only if simultaneously allowing open carry; or (3) by limiting the carrying of a

firearm in a “sensitive place.”

73. Accordingly, because New York does not allow the open carrying of

handguns, Section 5 is unconstitutional to the extent it limits Handgun Carry

Licensees from carrying a concealed firearm in locations that are not “sensitive

places.”

74. Section 5 is unconstitutional because there are no valid historical

precedents that would justify a law that prohibits the carrying, open or concealed, of

all firearms, on all private property within the state, unless the owner or lessee of

such property expressly allows the carrying of firearms on such property.

75. Section 5 operates to require all Handgun Carry Licensees to get

permission from strangers (i.e., the owner/lessee of every property they visit) before

they are able to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense on such property.

76. Such a regulation would be unthinkable in the context of the First

Amendment.

15
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 16 of 21

77. It would be patently unconstitutional for the State to require citizens to

seek permission from the owner of each property they visit before they could legally

speak or pray.

78. So too, it is unconstitutional to treat Second Amendment rights in this

way, especially after the Supreme Court declared: “The constitutional right to bear

arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely

different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, Slip Opinion

at p.62.

79. Section 5 is also unconstitutional because New York lacks any

compelling state interest to prohibit Handgun Carry Licensees—who have passed its

vetting regime—from carrying a concealed weapon on private property.

80. To the extent New York has any such compelling state interest, Section

5 is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored to serve these interests.

81. Section 5 should also be found to be invalid because it does not have

rational connection to New York’s interest in promoting public safety. Section 5 acts

to prohibit Handgun Carry Licensees from carrying concealed firearms for self-

defense, despite the fact that New York has already determined that these very same

individuals do not pose a risk to public safety.

82. If anything, Section 5 actually imperils public safety by informing

would-be criminals of the locations where they are least likely to encounter armed

resistance (i.e., whether or not a private property has posted the signage required

under Section 5).

16
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 17 of 21

83. Because Section 5 constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the

Second Amendment rights of Handgun Carry Licensees, this Court should declare

Section 5 unenforceable against Handgun Carry Licensees and enjoin Defendant

from enforcing Section 5 against Handgun Carry Licensees

84. By infringing on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public in

these ways, Section 5 violates the Second Amendment—which applies to Defendants

by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment—both facially and as Section 5 will be

applied to Plaintiffs.

85. Therefore, because Section 5 constitutes an unconstitutional restriction

on the Second Amendment rights of Handgun Carry Licensees, this Court should

declare Section 5 unenforceable against Handgun Carry Licensees, including

Paladino, and enjoin Defendant from enforcing Section 5 against Handgun Carry

Licensees, including Paladino.

COUNT TWO
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action for Depravation of Plaintiffs’ Rights
under U.S. Const. amends. I, V and XIV

86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding

paragraphs.

87. The First Amendment prohibits a government from compelling speech.

88. The Fifth Amendment prohibits a government from specifically

directing how an owner must use or modify its property.

89. These First and Fifth Amendment rights apply against the State of New

York under the Fourteenth Amendment.

17
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 18 of 21

90. Plaintiff Ellicott Development does not wish to curtail New Yorkers’

Second Amendment rights to bear concealed firearms in public for self-defense at one

or more of its properties.

91. Section 5 acts to compel Ellicott Development to speak before Handgun

Carry Licensees are permitted to carry concealed firearms on such properties.

92. Specifically, Section 5 acts to declare Ellicott Development’s properties

to be “restricted location[s]” unless and until Ellicott Development speaks to say

otherwise.

93. As such, Section 5 violates the First Amendment by compelling Ellicott

Development’s speech on this issue.

94. This compelled speech bears no relation to Ellicott Development’s

business operations, nor does it bear any relation to any legitimate interest New York

state may have in relation to the safety of its residents.

95. In practice, Section 5 requires that Ellicott Development modify its

properties to include specific signage in order for Ellicott Development to ensure that

such properties are not found to be “restricted location[s]” for any Handgun Carry

Licensees. Installing such signage is the only way for Ellicott Development to ensure

this given that Ellicott Development is unaware of the identity of every individual

who enters its properties and whether or not such individuals are Handgun Carry

Licensees.

18
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 19 of 21

96. This mandated signage bears no relation to Ellicott Development’s

business operations, nor does such signage bear any relation to any legitimate

interest New York state may have in relation to the safety of its residents.

97. By infringing on the First and Fifth Amendments in these ways—i.e.,

by compelling Ellicott Development to speak and/or modify its properties with

signage—Section 5 violates the First and Fifth Amendments, which apply to

Defendants by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and as Section

5 is to be applied to Plaintiffs.

98. Therefore, this Court should (1) declare Section 5 unenforceable against

Handgun Carry Licensees who carry concealed firearms on Ellicott Development’s

properties, notwithstanding whether or not Ellicott Development posts signage or

otherwise gives express permission for Handgun Carry Licensees to carry concealed

firearms on such properties; and (2) enjoin Defendants from enforcing Section 5

against Handgun Carry Licensees who carry concealed firearms on Ellicott

Development’s properties, notwithstanding whether or not Ellicott Development

posts signage or otherwise gives express permission for Handgun Carry Licensees to

carry concealed firearms on such properties.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an order and judgment:

a. Declaring that Section 5 of Chapter 371 (i.e., N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-

d), violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as it relates to Handgun

19
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 20 of 21

Carry Licensees carrying concealed firearms, and is thus devoid of any legal force or

effect in such a context;

b. Declaring that Section 5 of Chapter 371 (i.e., N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-

d), violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as Section 5 requires

property owners to speak before Handgun Carry Licensees may legally carry

concealed firearms on such private property, and is thus devoid of any legal force or

effect in such a context;

c. Declaring that Section 5 of Chapter 371 (i.e., N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-

d), violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments insofar as Section 5 requires

property owners to post signage on their property before Handgun Carry Licensees

may legally carry concealed firearms on such private property, and is thus devoid of

any legal force or effect in such a context;

d. Enjoining Defendants and their employees and agents from enforcing or

applying Section 5 of Chapter 371 (i.e., N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d) against Handgun

Carry Licensees carrying concealed firearms;

e. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

incurred in bringing this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

20
 Case 1:22-cv-00541 Document 1 Filed 07/11/22 Page 21 of 21

DATED: Buffalo, New York LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

July 11, 2022
s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr.
PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR., ESQ.
Attorneys for
Office and Post Office Address
42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
Buffalo, New York 14202-3901
Phone: (716) 849-1333
Fax: (716) 855-1580
E-mail: pcambria@lglaw.com

21