Long Island Gasoline Retailers Ass'n, Inc. v. Paterson
The plaintiffs, owners of retail fuel and food businesses, sued the governor of New York and others on the basis that a new tax law was unconstitutional pursuant to the equal protection and due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, section 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution. Prior to April of 2009, retailers were required to pay a $100.00 flat registration fee for the sale of retail tobacco products. In April of 2009, the State legislature amended the New York tax law to be based on the gross sale of all products at a location on a graduated scale. The Court dismissed the case based on lack of standing because none of the plaintiffs had suffered any harm.
Long Island Gasoline Retailers Ass'n, Inc. v. Paterson, 897 N.Y.S.2d 850, 27 Misc.3d 914, Supreme Court, New York (2010).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
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.
"At issue here is whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated a harmful effect on at least one of its members, and whether the plaintiffs have established that the action herein would not require the participation of individual members. As already provided, the plaintiffs herein are five trade associations that collectively represent approximately ten thousand (10,000) members who are comprised of retail fuel and food businesses which own and operate neighborhood mini-marts, convenience stores and gas stations. James Calvin, President of plaintiff, The New York Association of Convenience Stores, (NYACS), avers, in support of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, and in opposition to defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, that NYACS is a member-driven organization that advocates for a favorable environment for more than 7,000 of New York State's diverse, dynamic community of neighborhood convenience stores. Mr. Calvin avers that NYACS, and the remaining four plaintiff associations, challenge, as a unified voice, the legislative and regulatory issues that are regarded as adversely impacting their members, that nearly all of the members represented by the plaintiffs sell tobacco products and are thus damaged by the new legislation. Plaintiffs assert that the plaintiff trade associations represent more than 10,000 businesses impacted by the new tax imposed on tobacco retailers. While arguably, an individual retail store, one of its members, may be required to pay a larger fee, and arguably, "collectively", the members may be required to pay a larger fee, there has been no showing of injury in fact to one of the plaintiff associations' member, to any one single retail dealer, or that any one of its members would be forced to close down their business. The plaintiffs have not demonstrated, through competent admissible non-speculative evidence, other than mere assertions, that one member would be harmed, or injured in fact. The plaintiffs have not put forward, or identified, one single retail member, or disclosed such members' gross sales to indicate how the revised fee would force such member to close down its business. The potential injuries to a member of the various trade associations herein, are speculative, and therefore insufficient to establish standing. (New York State Association of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 778 N.Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405). Accordingly, as the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a harmful effect on at least one of its members and that the action herein would not require the participation of individual members, the plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing to bring this proceeding."
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.
The plaintiffs, owners of retail fuel and food businesses, sued the governor of New York and others on the basis that a new tax law was unconstitutional pursuant to the equal protection and due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, section 6 and 11 of the New York State Constitution. Prior to April of 2009, retailers were required to pay a $100.00 flat registration fee for the sale of retail tobacco products. In April of 2009, the State legislature amended the New York tax law to be based on the gross sale of all products at a location on a graduated scale. The Court dismissed the case based on lack of standing because none of the plaintiffs had suffered any harm.