NYC C.L.A.S.H. v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation
A non-profit corporation challenged a state regulation establishing outdoor no-smoking areas within certain parks, historic sites, and recreational facilities. The association challenged the regulation on several grounds, including that the agency which issued the regulation, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, usurped the role of the legislature by issuing a regulation designed to set public policy. The Court agreed, holding that the regulation violated the separation of powers doctrine and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The Court pointed to several factors in its decision – (1) the absence of an outdoor tobacco use policy established by the legislature; (2) the fact that the state legislature had considered, but failed to pass, laws governing smoking in public parks; and (3) that the regulation did not require any special expertise or technical competence in the agency’s field. Together, these factors indicate that the agency exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the regulation.
NYC C.L.A.S.H. Inc. v. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 2218/2013, New York State Supreme Court, Albany County.
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.
"With regard to the second factor, the Court of Appeals considered the imposition of smoking restrictions to be fraught with "difficult social problems," which must be resolved by "making choices among competing ends" and, thus, an area especially suited for legislative guidance (Boreali, 71 NY2d at 13). While the Legislature ultimately enacted a comprehensive law concerning indoor smoking many years after Boreali was rendered (see Public Health Law § 1 399-n et seq.), respondents do not seriously dispute the absence of a legislatively established outdoor tobacco use policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that, in adopting 9 NYCRR § 386.1, respondents "merely fill[ed] in the details of broad legislation describing the over-all policies to be implemented" (Boreali, 71 NY2d at 13).
Nor does the broad language of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law empower respondents to promulgate rules regulating conduct bearing any tenuous relationship to park patrons' health or welfare (see Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 3.09)."
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 non-profit corporation challenged a state regulation establishing outdoor no-smoking areas within certain parks, historic sites, and recreational facilities. The association challenged the regulation on several grounds, including that the agency which issued the regulation, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, usurped the role of the legislature by issuing a regulation designed to set public policy. The Court agreed, holding that the regulation violated the separation of powers doctrine and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The Court pointed to several factors in its decision – (1) the absence of an outdoor tobacco use policy established by the legislature; (2) the fact that the state legislature had considered, but failed to pass, laws governing smoking in public parks; and (3) that the regulation did not require any special expertise or technical competence in the agency’s field. Together, these factors indicate that the agency exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the regulation.