An extreme risk protection order does not require proof of a firearm threat or possession

Holding The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of an extreme risk protection order, holding that CPLR article 63-A does not require proof that the respondent threatened harm with a firearm or currently possesses one. The court determined that the statutory standard focuses on the likelihood of serious harm to self or others, and imposing a firearm-specific prerequisite was an erroneous legal standard that foreclosed the petitioner from presenting its proof.

Why it matters

Clarifies the statutory interpretation of CPLR article 63-A by explicitly rejecting the requirement of firearm possession or threat as a prerequisite for an ERPO.

Establishes that courts cannot engraft additional statutory requirements not present in the text, specifically regarding the method of harm.

The court’s words

nothing in the statutory framework requires proof that the threatened or anticipated physical harm will be accomplished with a firearm

2026 NY Slip Op 05452, at the official text

the court failed to conduct the statutorily required hearing which contemplates consideration of the petition, the evidence submitted by the parties and the relevant law-enforcement report

2026 NY Slip Op 05452, at the official text

the matter must be remitted for a new hearing at which the parties may fully present their relevant proof

2026 NY Slip Op 05452, at the official text