In the Matter of the Application for a Retail Firearms, 136 A.3d 418

Background

Michael Stabile applied in Aug. 2010 to renew and transfer retail firearms dealer license No. 2530 (Wild West City) to Cayuse LLC; the license expired Oct. 4, 2010.
Sussex County prosecutor opposed renewal based on a 2006 accidental shooting at the park and a subsequent grand jury indictment charging Stabile and related entities. The prosecutor’s opposition letter was not served on Stabile.
On Sept. 30, 2010 the judge conducted an ex parte hearing (State prosecutor attended; Stabile did not and was likely not notified) and denied the application, stating Cayuse could obtain a de novo hearing.
Stabile requested a hearing in Oct. 2010 but received no timely response; in Mar. 2012 the court held a plenary hearing in his absence after he elected to pursue appellate review and again denied the application citing pending indictable charges and his nonappearance.
The indictment against Stabile was later dismissed; WWI (previous operator) entered a conditional guilty plea admitting facts that operable handguns were provided to actors.
The Appellate Division found procedural error in the ex parte denial but held the applicant bears the burden to prove statutory eligibility; because the 2010–13 license period has expired the court vacated the denials but did not remand for a new hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was it permissible for the trial court to decide a contested N.J.S.A. 2C:58-2 application ex parte and then offer a de novo hearing before the same judge?	Stabile: ex parte denial without notice violated due process; he was entitled to automatic approval because no timely hearing was held.	State: judge properly denied application based on investigative materials and later relied on merits at the plenary hearing; procedural defects do not mandate licensure.	Trial court erred in conducting an ex parte decision on a contested application; a contested application ordinarily requires a hearing on the record with notice; offering a de novo hearing before the same judge does not cure the defect.
What is the proper admissible evidentiary basis for denying a license when criminal charges are pending?	Stabile: unproven indictment allegations insufficient to deny licensure.	State: underlying investigative material and later admissions justify denial.	A pending indictment alone is not competent evidence; the court may not rely on unproved indictment allegations and must base decisions on competent evidence (hearsay may be admissible if corroborative).
Who bears burden of proof in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-2 license applications?	Stabile: (implicit) burden on State to show danger to public safety or disqualifying facts.	State: (implicit) can rely on investigative evidence to show danger or disqualification.	Applicant bears the burden to prove by a preponderance that he meets statutory standards and can operate without danger to public safety; the State generally bears the initial production burden to identify and present objections.
Remedy for procedural error where license term expired	Stabile: procedural errors and failure to provide timely hearing should result in automatic renewal or remand.	State: procedural errors do not automatically entitle applicant to license; denial proper based on merits and applicant’s nonappearance.	Vacated the trial-court orders (denials) but declined to remand for a hearing on the 2010 application as the license term expired; set procedure for future applications.

Key Cases Cited

Massett Bldg. Co. v. Bennett, 4 N.J. 53 (N.J. 1950) (legislative delegation to courts contemplates impartial judicial process)
In re Sportsman's Rendezvous Retail Firearms Dealer's License, 374 N.J. Super. 565 (App. Div. 2005) (two-stage summary-deny then de novo plenary hearing procedure used but not to be treated as default)
Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36 (N.J. 1972) (procedural protections and admissibility guidance for FPIC applications; evidentiary hearing required on appeal)
In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (N.J. 1997) (deference to trial-court factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (N.J. 2012) (court may consider only established or undisputed facts, not unproved allegations)
In re Dubov, 410 N.J. Super. 190 (App. Div. 2009) (procedural omission in licensing does not entitle applicant to automatic approval)
In re Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2013) (applicant bears burden to prove statutory requirements for carry permit)
In re Pantano, 429 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 2013) (burden on applicant to prove justifiable need for a permit)