New York's Flavored Vaping Ban Put on Hold by State Appeals Court
If a trial judge ultimately rejects a motion for preliminary injunction against the ban, it's likely that decision will also end up before the Third Department.
October 03, 2019 at 04:01 PM
5 minute read
New York's ban on the sale of flavored vaping products, also known as e-cigarettes, won't take effect Friday after a state appellate court granted a request from an industry group to delay implementation of the rule.
The Appellate Division, Third Department, in an order handed down Thursday, barred the state from enforcing the ban until a motion for a preliminary injunction is decided by a trial court judge.
That means the ban will be delayed for at least the next two weeks. A ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, which would halt the state's ban for even longer, isn't expected until Oct. 18 or later, according to filings.
The Vapor Technology Association, the industry group suing the state over its ban on the sale of flavored vaping products, cheered the ruling in a statement Thursday afternoon.
"We are very pleased with the New York State Appellate Division's decision, which acknowledges the strength of our claims about the state's executive overreach, and which preserves the ability of hundreds of small businesses to remain open and continue to serve their adult customers," said Tony Abboud, the group's executive director.
The group was represented by Richard De Palma, Eric Heyer and Joseph Smith from law firm Thompson Hine.
New York State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker was optimistic about the state's chances of having the group's motion for a preliminary injunction rejected in the coming weeks. He said in a statement that the state doesn't plan to back off its efforts to curb vaping in New York.
"It is undeniable that the vaping industry is using flavored e-cigarettes to get young people hooked on potentially dangerous and deadly products," Zucker said. "While the court's ruling temporarily delays our scheduled enforcement of this ban, it will not deter us from using every tool at our disposal to address this crisis."
The state promulgated the ban in response to a series of vaping-related illnesses that have been reported in recent weeks, which peaked above 100 cases in New York alone Wednesday, according to the Department of Health.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in response to those reports, moved to outlaw the sale of flavored vaping products. The Public Health and Health Planning Council, a state entity charged with promulgating emergency regulations concerning public health, later approved the ban.
That apparently did not sit well with store owners who sell flavored vaping products and individuals who said the flavors helped them quit smoking tobacco products. They also argued that the ban was misdirected because the illnesses were said to be linked to illegal cannabis vaping products.
The Vapor Technology Association was the first trade group to sue over the measure last week, after which it immediately sought a temporary restraining order to delay the ban's start date.
The organization has argued that a ban on the sale of flavored vaping products was outside the purview of the executive branch of state government, and would instead have to be done by the state Legislature. That very well could happen next year, lawmakers have suggested.
In the meantime, Albany County Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly decided to reject the group's request for a temporary restraining order. Cuomo celebrated the ruling at the time.
"Make no mistake: this is a fight for the very future of this state and for the health of all New Yorkers, and we will continue using every tool at our disposal to protect young people from forming dangerous lifelong habits," Cuomo said.
Attorneys for the Vapor Technology Association then moved for permission to appeal Connolly's decision on the temporary restraining order to the Third Department.
According to the appellate court's order, the state is "temporarily enjoined and prevented from enforcing" the ban on the sale of flavored vaping products until Connolly makes a decision on the preliminary injunction motion.
Both the state and the Vapor Technology Association are scheduled to file briefs on that motion in the coming weeks, with a decision expected shortly thereafter. If Connolly ultimately decides to reject the preliminary injunction, it's likely that decision will end up before the Third Department for review as well.
Associate Justices Christine Clark, Robert Mulvey, Eugene Devine and Stan Pritzker participated in the Third Department's order.
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Is It Becoming More Difficult for Businesses to Mandate Arbitration of Employment Disputes?
- 2The Whys and Hows of a Mediator’s Proposal
- 3Litigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
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