RICARDO FREENY VS. JOHN DOES(SC-241-15, SC-242-15, SC-243-15, SC-244-15, SC-245-15,SC-246-15, SC-247-15, CUMBERLAND AND SC-432-15, MERCERCOUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1062-15T2

IN RE APPLICATION FOR
PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN
OF VINCENT A. CARRABBA.
______________________________

Submitted March 27, 2017 – Decided April 6, 2017

Before Judges Nugent and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

Evan F. Nappen, attorney for appellant Vincent
A. Carrabba (Louis P. Nappen, on the brief).

Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent State of New Jersey
(Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Vincent Carrabba appeals from the Law Division's

July 16, 2015 order denying his application for a renewal permit

to carry a firearm. We affirm.

According to the application, appellant was the owner of a

private security firm and a licensed private detective. In the
application, appellant asserted that as the owner of the firm, he

supervised armed and unarmed security guards at various New Jersey

businesses, and filled in for them when they were absent from

work. The Superintendent of the State Police approved appellant's

application and it was then submitted to the court for review

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d).

On July 16, 2015, Judge Stuart Peim entered an order denying

appellant's application. In a supporting written statement of

reasons, Judge Peim, relying on N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) and the Supreme

Court's decisions in In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990) and Siccardi

v. State, 59 N.J. 545 (1971), explained that appellant's

application did not establish any "justifiable need" for him to

carry a handgun. Judge Peim stated:

In the instant case, [appellant] has not
shown specific threats against his person.
[Appellant] does not state that he is subject
to a substantial threat of serious bodily harm
or that carrying a handgun is necessary to
reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious
bodily harm. The bare statements in
[appellant's] letter of need do not provide
information necessary to meet the required
criteria set forth in our case law. The
stringent requirements of our law have not
been satisfied and as such this application
is [denied].

On October 5, 2015, Judge Peim denied appellant's motion for

reconsideration. This appeal followed.

On appeal, appellant raises the following contentions:

2 A-1062-15T2
 POINT 1

THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO [APPELLANT] VIOLATES
SEPARATION OF POWERS. (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT 2

THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY DENYING [APPELLANT]
DUE PROCESS NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD. (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT 3

THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY APPLYING A WRONG
STANDARD OF LAW, AND [APPELLANT'S] MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

POINT 4

THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY FAILING TO HEAR FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE REGARDING
HIS REASONS FOR APPROVING THE APPLICATION.
(NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT 5

THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE
RENEWAL APPLICATION GRANTED BECAUSE
[APPELLANT] MEETS THE STANDARD UNDER THE LAW.

We have considered these arguments in light of our review of

the record and the applicable principles of law. We affirm

substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Peim in his

written opinion and conclude that appellant's arguments lack

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief comments.

N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(2) requires "employees of private

detective agencies, armored car companies and private security

3 A-1062-15T2
companies" to establish the following to demonstrate a

"justifiable need" for a permit to carry a handgun:

i. [That] [i]n the course of performing
statutorily authorized duties, the applicant
is subject to a substantial threat of serious
bodily harm; and

ii. That carrying a handgun by the applicant
is necessary to reduce the threat of
unjustifiable serious bodily harm to any
person.

Here, appellant's letter did not address either of these

requirements. Instead, he merely stated that he was a private

detective who supervised armed and unarmed guards, and that he

sometimes substituted for these employees if they were not

available. Under these circumstances, Judge Peim correctly found

that appellant failed to demonstrate a "justifiable need to carry

a handgun" under N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d).

Finally, we shall not address appellant's various challenges

to the constitutionality of the permit-to-carry statute, including

his claim that a hearing was required before the judge made a

decision on his application. Appellant did not raise these

arguments before the trial court and, therefore, we decline to

consider them for the first time on appeal. Nieder v. Royal Indem.

Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).

Affirmed.

4 A-1062-15T2