Second Amendment Legal Update, January 2026

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State. For a complete copy of this month’s report, click here.

Second Amendment Legal Update, January 2025

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State. For a complete copy of this month’s report, click here.

New Hope Card Program to Enhance Safety of Domestic Violence Survivors

Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman wants Domestic Violence Survivors to know about the implementation this month of the Hope Card program, a new initiative of the New York Courts that will further enhance the safety of domestic violence survivors, family court litigants and of crime victims generally.

“A Hope Card is a portable version and/or summary of an order of protection,” Getman said. “Parties with final orders of protection may request and receive, free of cost, a physical Hope Card, a digital Hope Card, or both, which they can carry in their wallet, pocket, or on their cell phone.”

“An order of protection is issued by a court to limit the behavior of someone who harms or threatens to harm another person,” he continued. “It is used to address various types of safety issues, including, but not limited to situations involving domestic violence, child abuse and neglect and crime victim safety. Family courts, criminal courts and supreme courts can all issue orders of protection where legally authorized.”

According to Getman, the physical Hope Card is a durable, wallet-sized card with a summary of the information on the order and a link to a digital image of the order. A digital Hope Card is a digital image of the order. Physical Hope Cards are sent to the protected party by mail, while digital Hope Cards are sent by email or text message, with a secure link to the digital image.

“Protected parties can readily provide vital information regarding orders of protection quickly and effectively to law enforcement in an emergency,” Getman said. “The cards will also enable protected parties to share the details of an order with their school, workplace, family or friends.”

Implementation of the Hope Card program follows passage last year in New York State of the Hope Card Act, designed to empower domestic violence survivors to enforce their orders of protection, Getman noted.

A Hope Card request can be made online or by filing a Hope Card Request form with the court clerk’s office at any Criminal, Family, or Supreme court. Hope Card Request forms are available online or at a criminal, family, or supreme courthouse.

Copies of the request form will also be available online at the Schuyler County Attorney’s Office webpage.

The Schuyler County Attorney is the legal advisor for county government. The Schuyler County Attorney's Office also serves as “presentment agency,” prosecuting cases of juveniles accused of crimes or delinquent behavior in Family Court as well as the attorney for the Department of Social Services when investigating and prosecuting Family Court cases of child abuse and neglect.

For more information about Hope Cards and who can request them, click here.WENY News

Second Amendment Legal Update, December 2023

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State. For a complete copy of this month’s report, click here.

New York’s migrant lawsuit against Schuyler County dismissed.

New York City/Watkins Glen (July 19)--A state Supreme Court Justice has thrown out New York City’s lawsuit against Schuyler County over the county’s May state of emergency related the possible relocation of migrant asylum seekers within the state.

On Wednesday (July 19, 2023), Justice Lyle Frank granted Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman’s motion to dismiss the case for a failure by the city to state a cause of action against the county.

In doing so, Frank agreed with Getman that the city’s case against the county was “non-justiciable” and that the city’s arguments for continuing the lawsuit were “speculative and without merit.”

Attorneys from New York City’s 850-lawyer Department of Law had argued that Schuyler County continued to oppose the city's use of hotels in its communities to provide temporary housing assistance to asylum seekers during the statewide migrant emergency, despite the county’s emergency order having expired.

The decision comes a day after Getman traveled to New York City for oral argument before Frank on the motion.

Getman said he was relieved but not surprised.

“We were likely to succeed on a number of our claims, including mootness, arguments that the city lacked standing against Schuyler County and that the lawsuit was brought in an improper forum,” he said.

In May, Schuyler County Legislature Chair Carl Blowers issued a local state of emergency for ten days that prohibited municipal programs from housing illegal migrants or asylum seekers. It also prevented any hotel, short-term rental and motel in the county from entering into a contract to house them. It was issued in response to plans by New York City Mayor Eric Adams to send asylum seekers to other areas of the state. Blowers’ order expired May 21.

In June, New York City sued Schuyler County and more than 30 municipalities and local leaders throughout the state, alleging the emergency orders illegally obstructed the city's efforts to relocate migrants upstate. The suit asked the state Supreme Court to invalidate the emergency orders on claims that they were unconstitutional. It also sought to prohibit the municipalities from taking steps that "restrict or frustrate" the city’s efforts to address the statewide emergency, which Gov. Kathy Hochul declared on May 9.

Judge Frank’s decision applies to Schuyler County only, Getman said. The other municipalities’ motions are expected to be addressed in separate orders.

According to Getman, the city has approximately thirty days to appeal Frank’s decision.

A complete copy of the Schuyler County Attorney’s Memorandum of Law supporting dismissal is here.

A copy of Frank’s decision is available here.

Second Amendment Legal Update: April, 2022

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State. For a complete PDF copy of this month's update, click here.

Second Amendment Legal Update: March, 2022

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State.

For a complete PDF copy of this month's update, click here.

Second Amendment Legal Update: September, 2021

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State. For a complete PDF copy of this month's update, click here.

Second Amendment Legal Update: August, 2021

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State.

For a complete PDF copy of this month's update, click here.

Second Amendment Legal Update: July 2020

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd Amendment rights for the residents of New York State.

Second Amendment Legal Update: June, 2020

A monthly update, prepared for the Schuyler County Chapter of S.C.O.P.E. NY, a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd amendment rights for the residents of New York State.

Schuyler County S.C.O.P.E. Legal Update, June 2020 by Steven Getman on Scribd

$20 million federal fine against Rochester-area opioid distributor announced

One of the “big pharma” distributors of prescription opiates being sued by Schuyler County for fraudulent and negligent marketing and distribution of opiates will pay a $20 million fine under an settlement unveiled in federal court on Tuesday (April 23).

Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. (RDC), one of the nation's largest pharmaceutical distributors, was charged by federal prosecutors with conspiracy to distribute controlled narcotics — oxycodone and fentanyl — for non-medical reasons and conspiracy to defraud. Prosecutors allege that, from 2012 through March 2017, RDC knowingly and intentionally violated federal narcotics laws by distributing opioids to pharmacy customers that it knew were being sold and used illicitly.

According to court documents, the company has agreed to enter into a “consent decree,” under which it accepts responsibility for its conduct by making admissions and stipulating to an extensive "Statement of Facts," paying a $20 million penalty, reforming its controlled substances compliance program, and submitting to supervision by an independent monitor.

RDC is one of the big pharmaceutical companies being sued in state court by various New York municipalities, including Schuyler County. In May of last year, Schuyler County Attorney Steven Getman filed a nearly 250-page Summons and Complaint in New York State Supreme Court for damages to the county arising out of the fraudulent and negligent marketing and distribution of opiates in the county.

Getman said his office would be carefully reviewing the statement of facts for evidence that could be used to support the county’s lawsuit.

“Schuyler County’s complaint alleges increased opioid use has fueled an illegal secondary market for opioids and the criminals who support it,” Getman said. “It also alleges that the defendants flooded the county with suspiciously large amounts of opioids.”

“To date, county officials have expended significant resources to help its residents battle opioid addiction and prevent further deaths,” Getman said. “Schuyler County’s lawsuit is moving forward to seek reimbursement for expenses related to the opioid crisis as well as to provide the county with financial aid to fight addiction, overdoses, drug-related crimes and drug deaths.”

In 2017, the County Legislature voted to retain the firm of Napoli Shkolnik to work with Getman, as special counsel, to bring an action against the manufacturers and distributers of prescription opiates for damages to the county.

According to Schuyler County Administrator Tim O’Hearn, the lawsuit was filed at no risk to the County, as Napoli Shkolnik will work on contingency basis that will cover all costs associated with the lawsuit.

“By going forward with litigation, the County Legislature hopes to lessen the burden to taxpayers and hold manufacturers and distributors responsible for their role in the opioid epidemic,” O’Hearn said.

Schuyler County is one of several New York municipalities filing lawsuits against the manufacturers and distributors of opioid pain killers. At least 14 counties across New York are suing pharmaceutical companies for what they are claiming are deceptive marketing practices.

The consent decree is subject to final approval by the court. Any charges contained in complaints, indictments and other court documents are merely accusations, and any defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Schuyler County joins fight against New York gun law

Elmira Star-Gazette:

Schuyler County has joined several other upstate New York counties, including Chemung and Steuben, in supporting a Supreme Court challenge to a New York City law that officials say could have statewide implications.

The county legislature unanimously authorized county attorney Steven Getman to assist in an upcoming case filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association against the city and state of New York.

At issue is a New York City law that prohibits licensed handgun owners from carrying their weapons outside the city, even if they are locked and unloaded....

Getman and the other litigants argue the law is unconstitutional in that it violates the right to travel, interstate commerce, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Schuyler County considers joining U.S. Supreme Court challenge to New York gun law

The Schuyler County legislature will vote at its Monday (April 8) meeting whether to join a constitutional challenge to a New York City law that could have broad implications for the state’s gun control measures.

The proposed resolution, which has passed both the county’s management and finance committee and its legislative resolution review committee, authorizes County Attorney Steven Getman to “render aid, where possible and practicable, to the various states listed as Amicus Curiae in the pending United States Supreme Court case of the New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. et. al. v. City of New York, State of New York et. al.”

Those states have joined the New York Rifle and Pistol Association in arguing that New York City’s general prohibition on transporting even licensed, locked and unloaded handguns outside the city is unconstitutional, in that it violates the right to travel, interstate commerce, and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

They also argue that the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which covers New York, applied an incorrect standard in upholding the law. The appeals court, the plaintiffs argue, erred by failing to subject to the law to a “strict scrutiny” test.

“Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review a court may use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental action,” Getman explained. “It is often applied when a law infringes upon a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification.”

“Under that test, a law must further a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.”

According to Getman, this is the first significant Second Amendment case the Supreme Court will hear since ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and further that this right applies against the states as well as the federal government, in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association challenged the city’s ban on taking a licensed handgun out of the licensee’s home except to a gun range within the city. The Second Circuit upheld the ban based on “intermediate scrutiny,” even though that standard requires that a restriction actually works to achieve a legitimate goal. Under the law, a city resident licensed to possess a handgun cannot transport their handgun to a weekend second home (even for self-defense), to another county to participate in a shooting competition, or even to a neighboring city for target practice. This, opponents argue, amounts to requiring a handgun owner to leave a firearm in a vacant house in the city while traveling, where it is more susceptible to burglary. They further argue that the city was unable to explain how a legal gun owner inflicts any risk on society when transporting a firearm outside the city, but not when transporting the identical firearm under identical conditions by identical means within the city itself.

How the Supreme Court rules could have broad implications for Schuyler County residents in terms of what sort of gun control measures the state might impose going forward, Getman noted. In recent years, Governor Andrew Cuomo has been a vocal advocate for increased firearm restrictions.

This is not the first time that the Schuyler County legislature has weighed in against Cuomo’s strict gun control laws. In 2013, the legislature passed several resolutions opposing the controversial SAFE act, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment and created an unfunded mandate on the counties.

If the county joins the action, it would be at no cost to the county, the resolution notes.

Schuyler County is not the first county in New York to join the amicus filing. As of Wednesday (April 3), the following counties are known to have passed resolutions supporting the law’s challenge on Second Amendment grounds: Cortland, St. Lawrence, In addition, the following upstate counties are currently considering joining the action: Steuben, Montgomery, Lewis, Tioga, Chemung, Schenectady and Jefferson.

The states currently filing in support of the Amicus Curiae, and against the law, are: Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A brief in opposition to the New York law has also been filed by: The Western States Sheriffs’ Association, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Law Enforcement Action Network, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers.

The current resolution was sponsored at management and finance by legislator Phil Barnes (R), District VI, Town of Dix.

A copy of draft resolution, submitted to the legislature by Getman, can be found here.

Resolution (Draft): Adoptin... by on Scribd

The Supreme Court starts on the first Monday in October

Today, the Supreme Court starts its new term on the first Monday of the month of October, an annual event that goes back to 1917.

Supreme Court says police need a warrant for historical cell location records

Via ZDNet:

The Supreme Court has said that law enforcement must first seek a warrant before obtaining historical cell phone location records from phone companies, upending a near-decade long practice by police.

The court ruled 5-4 on the case, in what became one of the most awaited privacy legal decisions in the US this year.

The so-called "Carpenter" case had centered on the eponymous Timothy Carpenter, a criminal who was caught thanks to cell phone records in 2011. Law enforcement had obtained his location data from a phone provider without a search warrant, arguing the provider already had his data and Carpenter had no "reasonable expectation of privacy."

But the court found the government's warrantless access to cell-site records over a period of time "contravenes that expectation" of privacy, said (the court)....

The court stressed that the decision does not consider real-time tracking, or so-called "tower dumps," which police use to obtain information on all of the devices connected to a cell tower at during a particular period of time....

Police may, however, still obtain this data without a warrant in exigent circumstances, such as if there is an immediate threat or danger to life.

Read the complete decision here.

More on the Carpenter case here.

U.S. Supreme Court: police need warrant to search vehicle located near home

Via Washington Examiner:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled police must obtain a warrant to search a vehicle parked near a home on private property, setting new limits on law enforcement's ability to conduct searches...

The man at the center of the case is Ryan Collins, who twice eluded police while riding a motorcycle in Albemarle County, Va., in 2013. Officers eventually found the motorcycle covered with a tarp and parked on a parking patio outside a house belonging to Collins’ girlfriend.

Police lifted the tarp and ran the motorcycle’s vehicle identification number. Upon running the VIN, officers discovered the motorcycle had been stolen in New York several years earlier, and Collins was arrested.

Collins argued the police violated the Fourth Amendment with its warrantless search because the motorcycle was located within the curtilage of the home.

But a trial court, state appeals court, and the Virginia Supreme Court disagreed, and said the search was constitutional.

In its decision, the Virginia Supreme Court cited the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception, under which an officer can search a vehicle without a warrant if he or she has probable cause to believe the vehicle was involved in a crime.

But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying nothing in its case law indicates that the automobile exception gave law enforcement the right to enter a home or its curtilage to access a vehicle without a warrant.

The complete decision can be found here.

U.S. Supreme Court Moves to e-filing.

The United States Supreme Court’s new electronic filing system begins operation on Monday, November 13, 2017.

The filing system will not be part of PACER, and attorneys will need to pre-register.

Additional information about the system is available here.

High Conflict Divorce: the Impact on Children

Are you in the process of a Divorce or Custody proceeding? Do you know how it affects your children?

The New York State Courts Access to Justice Program and the Gender Fairness Committee of the Supreme Court, New York County, Civil Branch are co-sponsoring “High Conflict Divorce: Part 2 of the Series The Impact on Children - Case by Case Analysis.”

The event will be held Wednesday, May 10, 2017 from 12:45 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street, Room 300, New York City.

The event is open to the public and includes the film “SPLIT,” a movie “about divorce for (and by) kids of divorce and (their parents).”

For more information, click here.

New York Appellate Court Now Live Broadcasting Oral Arguments.

Arguments at the Appellate Division, Fourth Department are now available to watch via a live feed.

Viewers can access the live feed by visiting here or by going to the Fourth Department's homepage.

Additionally, a digital archive will be available on the Fourth Department website for on-demand viewing, generally within three business days. Oral arguments will be screened for the disclosure of confidential information and may not be included in the digital archive.

The Fourth Department, which covers 22 counties located in Central and Western New York, hears oral arguments at the M. Dolores Denman Courthouse in Rochester, New York.

For more information, click here.