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
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.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
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.
"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."
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.
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.