- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case Name
- Matter of Lent v. City of New York
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03269
- Decision Date
- May 26, 2026
- Docket No.
- Index No. 158624/24, Appeal No. 6716, Case No. 2025-02225
Background
Thomas Lent, a retired NYPD officer, petitioned to annul a determination of the New York City Police Department not to issue him his badge, firearm, and a “good guy letter” affirming his right to carry a firearm upon his retirement on April 29, 2021. At the time of his retirement, Lent was on modified duty status, and NYPD did not issue his firearm, badge, or good guy letter.
Lent subsequently applied for a retiree handgun license, which NYPD denied on March 15, 2022, citing the absence of a good guy letter. On May 1, 2024—more than two years after the denial—Lent sent a letter to NYPD requesting reconsideration, which NYPD did not respond to. Lent then commenced this Article 78 proceeding. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings.
Supreme Court (Tisch, J.) denied the petition, granted the City’s cross-motion, and dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.
Holding
The First Department unanimously affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the four-month statute of limitations under CPLR 217(1) began to run, at the latest, upon Lent’s receipt of the written denial of his retiree handgun license application on March 15, 2022, which was a “final and binding” determination.
The court rejected Lent’s argument that his May 1, 2024 letter restarted the limitations period. Citing established precedent, the court held that the possibility of obtaining administrative relief had been exhausted when Lent retired without a change in his modified duty status. The 2024 letter was merely a request for reconsideration of the agency’s determination, which does not extend the statute of limitations.
The court also rejected Lent’s attempt to recharacterize the proceeding as mandamus to compel NYPD to perform a duty. Lent asserted no “clear legal right” to a good guy letter, which NYPD declined to issue in its discretion. A petitioner cannot circumvent the statute of limitations by demanding that an agency change its determination and then seeking mandamus when the demand is refused.
Key Takeaways
- The four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings begins to run upon receipt of a “final and binding” agency determination, not upon subsequent requests for reconsideration.
- A request for reconsideration of an agency determination does not extend or restart the statute of limitations.
- Recharacterizing a time-barred Article 78 proceeding as mandamus to compel is unavailing where the petitioner has no clear legal right to the relief sought and the agency acted within its discretion.
- Retired police officers on modified duty status at the time of retirement have no clear legal right to a “good guy letter” or retiree firearms privileges.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict time limitations governing Article 78 proceedings in New York and the principles preventing litigants from circumventing those limitations. The ruling is particularly relevant for retired law enforcement officers seeking firearms privileges after retirement, clarifying that NYPD’s discretionary decision not to issue a good guy letter constitutes a final determination subject to the four-month statute of limitations. Practitioners advising retired officers should ensure that challenges to adverse determinations regarding firearms privileges are brought promptly after the initial denial, as subsequent requests for reconsideration will not revive expired claims.