On August 9, 2023, we wrote in regards to the short-term injunction ordered by Decide Kevin Bryant in New York Supreme Court docket, County of Albany which occurred on August 7, 2023. That injunction supplied, in sum, that the New York Hashish Management Board (“CCB”) and Workplace of Hashish Administration (“OCM”) are restrained from awarding or additional processing any extra Conditional Grownup-Use Retail Dispensary (“CAURD”) licenses. They’re additionally constrained from conferring operational approval upon any extra provisional or present CAURD licenses, pending additional order of the Court docket.
On Friday, August 18, 2023, Decide Bryan granted the preliminary injunction (the “Order”) towards the CAURD licensing program, discovering, inter alia, that the CCB and OCM exceeded their authorized authority by creating a brand new licensing class that excluded particular minorities – particularly disabled veterans – who had been particularly prioritized within the 2021 state legislation that legalized leisure marijuana – the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (“MRTA”).
The Order prevents, the OCM and CCB from additional processing or awarding extra CAURD licenses. The Order supplies an exception for lots of the CAURD licensees who’ve already handed fundamental inspections and are able to open.
The Order had the next implications:
- It prohibited the OCM and CCB from processing or awarding any further CAURD licenses.
- Nonetheless, it supplied an exception for CAURD licensees who had met all necessities for licensing earlier than August 7, 2023, together with web site plan approval from the CCB and, the place relevant, native municipalities.
Decide Bryant’s choice was influenced by the truth that the OCM had made questionable choices, reminiscent of creating the CAURD program and continuing with licensing regardless of going through authorized challenges– together with the Variscite case and one other lawsuit introduced by the Coalition for Entry to Regulated and Secure Hashish. These challenges had the potential to invalidate all the CAURD program.
“It was Defendant that determined to maneuver ahead and speed up the CAURD program within the face of unresolved litigation they usually had been undeniably on discover of the alleged constitutional defects at difficulty,” Bryant wrote. “Regardless of this discover, Defendants inspired potential licensees to incur important bills in reliance on a program that Defendants knew was at difficulty in pending litigation.
That language, Bryant wrote, was that the retail license interval “be open to all candidates on the identical time,” and that the OCM had no authorized authority to create CAURD licenses, since these permits weren’t explicitly enumerated in state legislation.
In essence, the Order permits some present CAURD licensees to proceed their operations and open up dispensaries pending sure approval throughout the ongoing authorized proceedings. Nonetheless, it additionally means that all the CAURD program might in the end face important challenges and doubtlessly be invalidated.