This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

• Who: Stephen D. Stamboulieh writes for the Plaintiffs in Antonyuk, et al. v. James, et al.
• What happened: The parties asked the court to set deadlines for their cross-motions for summary judgment (a ruling without a full trial).
• The issue: The court’s June 4, 2026 scheduling order seems to give Plaintiffs 40 pages of briefing and Defendants 60 pages, instead of the 60 for Plaintiffs and 60 for Defendants that the parties asked for. This looks like the court accidentally left out a deadline for Plaintiffs’ 35 pages of replies and oppositions (August 31, 2026) and merged it with Defendants’ later 15-page reply (September 18, 2026).
• What Plaintiffs want: The plaintiffs ask the court to fix the scheduling order. They want the August 31, 2026 deadline restored for their replies/oppositions (up to 35 pages) and for the deadlines for the Defendants’ replies to be clarified to match what the parties originally proposed.
• Tone: They’re asking the judge to correct the schedule so both sides have the agreed deadlines and page limits.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here's the plain-English summary:

• The New York State Attorney General’s office is the lawyer for Steven G. James, who is the state police superintendent, in this lawsuit.
• They’re asking the judge to set a schedule for the parties to file and respond to cross-motions for summary judgment (a quick ruling on the case without a trial if there are no important facts in dispute).
• They explain the current order says motions can be filed on June 20, 2026, but there’s no plan for replies or page limits.
• They propose this timeline:
• June 30, 2026: Plaintiffs (the people suing) file their summary judgment motion, up to 25 pages.
• July 31, 2026: Defendants file their opposition and reply (their counterarguments and responses), up to 45 pages total.
• August 31, 2026: Plaintiffs file replies to the opponents, up to 35 pages.
• September 18, 2026: Defendants file their final replies, up to 15 pages.
• They believe this schedule will let the judge understand the issues clearly while saving court time.
• The letter is signed by James M. Thompson, Special Counsel for the Attorney General, and sent to the judge and all other lawyers in the case.

This document is not yet available on PACER.

Here’s the gist in plain English:

• Four plaintiffs (Antonyuk, Johnson, Terrille, and Sloane) filed a case against several New York state and local officials who enforce gun and public safety laws.
• They’re settling part of the case. This partial settlement only affects one plaintiff (Sloane) and one law (Penal Law § 400.00), not the whole lawsuit.
• What Sloane does:
• Sloane stops (discontinues) his challenge to Penal Law § 400.00 with no money paid, and he releases the state and its agencies from any current or future claims related to that challenge.
• Sloane agrees not to sue again over the same issue in any court or forum.
• What remains for the other plaintiffs:
• Antonyuk, Johnson, and Terrille will keep fighting challenges to other parts of Penal Law § 400.00 and to other provisions (Penal Law § 265.01-d and certain “sensitive locations” listed in § 265.01-e, like places with health services, public parks, zoos, buses, airports, places serving alcohol on-site, theaters, etc.).
• They also say they won’t bring in new plaintiffs to challenge those remaining provisions.
• Judge Doran (an official who was named in the case) withdraws his previous request for a ruling on the pleadings.
• The state officials agree to stop enforcing the social media requirement in Penal Law § 400.00(l)(o)(iv) for any plaintiff while the case is ongoing. The form used to apply for a concealed carry license (PPB-3) will not ask for social media information. This injunction would end if the Legislature repeals that social media rule.
• Sloane and Doran are dismissed from the case for the portion about Penal Law § 400.00 (so they aren’t part of the remaining disputes anymore).
• The settlement is purely about this one issue and does not mean any party admits the overall claims or creates a general rule for future cases.
• The agreement is binding only on the people who signed it and their successors, and it can’t be changed unless everyone signs off in writing.
• The agreement has no broad legal effect or precedent for other cases.
• The deal becomes effective once both sides sign and a judge signs off on it.
• The document can be signed in several copies or by electronic signatures.

Bottom line: It’s a focused, temporary agreement that ends Sloane’s challenge to a specific gun-law provision and temporarily blocks a social-media information requirement from being enforced, while the other plaintiffs keep pursuing challenges to other parts of the same laws.

This document is not yet available on PACER.