New Players to Enter State's Medical Marijuana Market After Judge Rejects Challenge
The action, brought by an association of existing companies in the market, aimed to stop an additional five from entering the market.
January 04, 2018 at 05:30 PM
4 minute read
An Albany Supreme Court justice has rejected a petition to stop five new companies from manufacturing and dispensing medical marijuana across New York state, lodged by five other companies already in the medical marijuana business. The decision clears the way for the new companies to move into a highly regulated market that opened after legislators passed the Compassionate Care Act in 2014.
An association of five for-profit entities that were already state-authorized to manufacture and dispense medical marijuana levied in 2017 what Justice W. Brooks DeBow called a hybrid declaratory judgment/Article 78 proceeding. The action aimed to stop the new group of five from entering the market, and the existing group of five argued that the plain language of the Compassionate Care Act—found at state Public Health Law § 3365 (9)—permanently limited to five the number of manufacturing companies that could be sanctioned by Department Health of Commissioner Howard Zucker.
But the additional five companies, each wanting to enter the market, combined to intervene in New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association's action against the Department of Health and Zucker. They argued that any limitation in the statutory language on Zucker was temporary. What's more, the five companies—Citiva Medical, Fiorello Pharmaceuticals, New York Canna, PalliaTech NY and Valley Agriceuticals—pointed to other language in the statute that they said made it clear Zucker could authorize additional manufacturers.
DeBow quoted from the statute in his Dec. 28 opinion while making clear that, on its face, the statute included seemingly contradictory language. He then looked to legislative history and the legislative intent in reaching a decision that said the association had not shown that Zucker, who last summer had authorized the new group of five manufacturers, had acted beyond the scope of his powers, or in an ultra vires way.
The applicable Public Health Law statutory provision, quoted in the opinion in New York Medical Cannabis Industry Association, Inc. v. New York State Department of Health, 2848-17, reads: “The commissioner shall register not more than five registered organizations that manufacture medical marijuana with no more than four dispensing sites wholly owned and operated by such registered organization. The commissioner shall ensure that such registered organizations and dispensing sites are geographically distributed across the state. The commission may register additional registered organizations.”
DeBow wrote that “despite the clearly inconsistent provisions in Public Health Law § 3365 (9), plaintiff/petitioner has not demonstrated that the plain language of that provision or the provisions of the CCA as a whole, or other legislative history demonstrates a legislative intent to permanently cap the number of medical marijuana ROs at five.”
He added that, “thus, plaintiff/petitioner has not demonstrated that the conduct of defendants/respondents [Zucker and the Department of Health] in registering more than five ROs was an ultra vires act.”
In reaching his decision, DeBow also pointed out that the legislative history of the CCA “provided little guidance.” But he looked to an Assembly floor debate in 2014 about the proposed statute, and noted that “in this colloquy, the sponsor of the bill acknowledged that the commissioner had unbridled discretion to register additional ROs in the event the market for medical marijuana demanded more product, which could be done by increasing supply through additional manufacturer ROs.”
Jerome Levy, a partner at Duane Morris in Manhattan and counsel for one of the new five companies, Fiorello Pharmaceuticals, said in an interview that “the decision will allow us [the new companies] to begin to set up our grow facilities and our dispensaries” in different areas of the state.
He added that “the judge's decision is completely acceptable to us. We feel that there's no basis in the law for limiting the number of organizations to five—that the law does say that [the] commissioner has the power to add more ROs.”
“By adding this second group of five,” he continued, “it will allow more dispensaries to be placed more evenly around the state leading to more access for people in need.”
Jennifer Kavney Harvey, a partner at Couch White in Albany who represented the association, could not be reached for comment. C. Harris Dague, a special counsel for state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, represented the Department of Health and Zucker. The Attorney General's Office did not return a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readRulings From NYC's Administrative Law Court to Be Published in the Law Journal
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250