IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ALEXANDER EVEN-ESH FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3885-10T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE

APPLICATION OF ALEXANDER

EVEN-ESH FOR A PERMIT

TO CARRY A HANDGUN.

October 11, 2012

Submitted September 4, 2012 - Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Ostrer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County.

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A., attorneys for appellant Alexander Even-Esh (Darren M. Gelber, of counsel and on the brief).

BruceJ. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Brian D. Gillet, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Alexander Even-Esh appeals the March 29, 2011 denial of his application to renew a permit to carry a handgun. We are advised by counsel, and the State does not dispute, that Even-Esh has moved from Middlesex County, the county where he resided when he was denied the permit to carry. Even-Esh now lives in Monmouth County. Unfortunately, the statutory scheme for the issuance of gun permits calls for applicants to reside in the county in which they seek permission. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c). Therefore Even-Esh must reapply in Monmouth County.

Although a consequence of this process will be that the new application may require him to disclose the fact he was denied permission in Middlesex County, the denial was clearly based on neutral reasons not unique to Even-Esh. He applied for renewal of his permit to carry for general protection while attending to his business, located in a high-crime area in Irvington. The Law Division judge in Middlesex County did not consider him to have established a "justified need" as required by statute, see N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c), opining that Even-Esh's reason was insufficient given the statutory language.

Matters are dismissed as moot where the result would be nothing more than an advisory opinion, having no practical effect on the dispute. Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.