NYC C.L.A.S.H. v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation

A nonprofit group challenged a state agency regulation prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor areas, including state parks. The court overruled an earlier decision and found that the agency’s regulation did not violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The court concluded that the state legislature instructed the parks agency to maintain its sites and that all aspects of the rule were grounded in the agency’s goal of allowing all patrons to enjoy its outdoor facilities. The court also concluded that it was reasonable for the agency to impose greater smoking restrictions on parks inside New York City because such parks are smaller, which allow patrons to easily leave the park to smoke. As a result, the court reinstated the smoking regulation.

NYC C.L.A.S.H. v NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, 125 A.D.3d 105 (2014).

  • United States
  • Dec 31, 2014
  • Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York

Parties

Plaintiff NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc.

Defendant New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

Legislation Cited

9 NYCRR 386.1 (Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation – No smoking areas)

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Applying the four Boreali considerations, we find no usurpation of the Legislature's prerogative by respondents' promulgation of 9 NYCRR 386.1. First, we find no indication that OPRHP improperly balanced economic and social concerns against its stated goal in order to act on its own ideas of sound public policy.3 We specifically reject petitioner's assertion that, because the regulatory impact statement discussed the proposed operational savings that would result from the regulation, respondents gave improper consideration to economic concerns, as this is not the kind of improper balancing proscribed under Boreali (see Matter of New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 23 NY3d at 697–698). Given the nature of OPRHP's facilities, designating the more populated areas as nonsmoking, while still permitting smoking in other areas of the facilities, allows all patrons to enjoy the parks regardless of their smoking preference. As for the New York City parks, the near-complete ban on smoking there even more strongly supports respondents' goal, by recognizing that these smaller parks are more thoroughly populated and, therefore, leave little space for patrons to avoid tobacco smoke and litter. Meanwhile, these same characteristics allow smokers to easily exit the parks in order to access an area where smoking is permitted."