As New York hashish retail licensing proceeds at a snail’s tempo, numerous companies are overtly promoting marijuana merchandise out of unlicensed shops and smoke outlets. It’s apparent to anybody strolling via New York Metropolis that town has been unable to reign in these “companies.” After allegedly sending stop and desist notices to these enterprise, town is now focusing on landlords of these retail areas.
New York Metropolis’s lawsuits in opposition to unlicensed hashish dispensary landlords
This week, the Metropolis started submitting lawsuits in opposition to unlicensed dispensaries and their landlords. One litigation that could be a good instance of the techniques and technique town is using is The Metropolis of New York v. The Land and Constructing Generally known as 14 First Avenue, et al., Index No: 450378/2023 (“Land Constructing”.) The go well with alleges that undercover, underage law enforcement officials purchased marijuana at every of the outlets on three events in December and people premises didn’t have a CAURD license to promote marijuana.
In every submitting, town calls for monetary penalties from each the landlords and retailer homeowners. The Metropolis is counting on the identical public nuisance legal guidelines that often are used when landlord refuse or fail to evict tenants that function brothels and drug dens. Pursuant to Section 7-703 of the Administrative Code, a “public nuisance” features a constructing that’s getting used for the aim of a enterprise, exercise or enterprise which isn’t licensed as required by legislation. As landlords (and everybody) are seemingly conscious, it’s unlawful to course of, distribute on the market or promote any hashish or hashish product throughout the state with out acquiring a license or allow approved by legislation.
The Land Constructing litigation
In Land Constructing, the Metropolis alleges that the Landlord owned, leased, used, maintained or performed the topic premises as a spot whereby hashish is bought with no CAURD license as is required by legislation. It notes that at the moment, the one kind of license authorizing the sale of hashish in New York State is a CAURD license. The Metropolis additional asserts that the Defendant tenant/operator(s) of the topic premises, has/have an obligation to concentrate on the unlicensed sale of hashish on the topic premises, and {that a} company is accountable for the conduct of its brokers (or staff) via whom it conducts its enterprise– as long as they act throughout the scope of their authority, actual or obvious.
The Metropolis is in search of a judgment: a) completely enjoining such public nuisance; b) directing the sheriff to grab and take away from the topic premises all materials, gear and instrumentalities used within the creation and upkeep of the general public nuisance; c) directing the sale by the sheriff of such property; and d) closing the topic premises for a interval of 1 (1) yr from the posting of the judgment. The Metropolis can be in search of a judgment in opposition to the defendants ordering that every defendant pay a penalty of 1 thousand {dollars} ($1,000.00) for every day that such defendant deliberately performed, maintained or permitted the general public nuisance.
What occurs subsequent
From a program administration perspective, it’s encouraging to see enforcement taken severely. Now we have periodically documented how lack of enforcement in California, for instance, has created an unfair dynamic for compliant operators, and instantly contributed to that program’s ills.
It is going to be fascinating to look at this litigation play out, and to see whether or not such lawsuits have the specified “chilling impact” on unlicensed hashish dispensaries all through New York Metropolis.