City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., et al.
New York City sued a number of cigarette wholesalers for selling untaxed cigarettes to Native American reservation retailers who then re-sold the cigarettes to the public. The court found that two of the wholesalers violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) and are liable for civil penalties to be determined by the court. The claim against a third wholesaler was dismissed due to insufficient proof of illegal sales of unstamped cigarettes within New York City. On another issue, the court found that the City had failed to prove that the wholesalers intended to harm competition or evade taxes and therefore had not violated the state’s Cigarette Marketing Standards Act. Finally, the court deemed the City’s public nuisance claim to be withdrawn since the City agreed it would withdraw the nuisance claim if it prevailed on one of its other claims.
City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., et al., Slip Copy, 2012 WL 3579568 (E.D.N.Y.).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Finally, and most concretely, the facts presented in this case make the defendants' protestations ring hollow. The defendants are in essence urging that because there was no prescribed tax collection mechanism for reservation cigarette sales, they had no option but to sell millions upon millions of unstamped cigarettes to retailers on the 375–person Poospatuck reservation—incidentally, at a large profit to themselves. Neither Gutlove nor Pennisi ever made any attempt to control or restrict the volume of unstamped cigarettes they sold to reservation retailers, or even to make inquiry of their customers about cigarette consumption by reservation Native Americans. The defendants' actions were thus materially indistinguishable from selling bulk quantities of unstamped cigarettes directly to members of the public. That the defendants funneled those cigarettes through the enforcement loophole presented by Native American reservation retailers does not insulate them from liability. Although the Court does not foreclose the possibility that there might exist fact patterns that would bar liability in the face of a wholesaler's good faith attempts to comply with its tax obligations under the prior version of § 471, this case does not present such a scenario. Cf. Morrison, 686 F.3d 94, 2012 WL 2877648, at *10 ("To the extent that New York's forbearance policy might be said to create some ambiguity regarding the scope of Native American cigarette retailers' tax liability for on-reservation cigarette sales, Morrison's actions went far beyond the sort of conduct that might be in any area of ambiguity."). The Cayuga court expressly noted that liability under the state tax laws remained for bulk transactions in unstamped cigarettes plainly intended for resale to non-Native Americans. Moreover, Morrison affirmed that the CCTA was an appropriate tool for overcoming New York's particular state-level obstacles to collecting applicable taxes on reservation-based cigarette sales. Morrison, 686 F.3d 94, 2012 WL 2877648, at *11."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
New York City sued a number of cigarette wholesalers for selling untaxed cigarettes to Native American reservation retailers who then re-sold the cigarettes to the public. The court found that two of the wholesalers violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA) and are liable for civil penalties to be determined by the court. The claim against a third wholesaler was dismissed due to insufficient proof of illegal sales of unstamped cigarettes within New York City. On another issue, the court found that the City had failed to prove that the wholesalers intended to harm competition or evade taxes and therefore had not violated the state’s Cigarette Marketing Standards Act. Finally, the court deemed the City’s public nuisance claim to be withdrawn since the City agreed it would withdraw the nuisance claim if it prevailed on one of its other claims.