Scott Mollen Violation of Cannabis Law; Succession Rights of Non-Traditional Family Members: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Scott Mollen discusses "The City of New York v. The Land and Building Known as 634 Nostrand Avenue a/k/a 1192 Dean Street," and "Stuyvesant Owners Inc. v. Frantino."
February 13, 2024 at 12:04 PM
11 minute read
Cannabis Store Enjoined From Selling Marijuana to Minors—Police Witnesses Submitted Affidavits Stating That They Observed the Sale of Marijuana Cigarettes to a Minor—Court Enjoined the Use or Occupancy of the Premises for Any Purpose, Including, But Not Limited to the Sale of Cannabis Without the Requisite License During the Pendency of the Action and Enjoined the Defendants From Removing Any "Furniture, Fixtures and Movable Property"—Municipality Is Exempt From Giving an Undertaking—CPLR §2512
The City of New York (City) moved for an order pursuant to NYC Admin. Code (Code) §7-707 and CPLR §§6301 and 6311, to preliminarily enjoin the defendants, "their agents, employees and/or representatives from": (1) the use and/or occupancy of the commercial premises operating as "Craft Beer & Cloud Hookah," located on the ground floor of the subject building for "any purpose whatsoever, and directing that said premises be closed; (2) removing or … interfering with the furniture, fixtures and movable property used in conducting, maintaining or permitting the nuisance complained of; and (3) conducting, maintaining, operating or permitting the premises to be used, occupied or operated for the sale of cannabis (a/k/a marijuana) without a license" from the NYS Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), in violation of §125 of the Cannabis Law.
The City had commenced the subject action alleging that the defendants, who are "tenants/operators/owners" of the premises, were permitting the sale of cannabis at the premises without a "Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary" (CAURD) license authorizing the lawful sale of adult-use cannabis, as required by Cannabis Law §125. The City further alleged that use of the building or premises for a business that lacked the "requisite license is a public nuisance under" Code §7‑703(f).
This content has been archived.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 All
US Law Firm Leasing Up Nearly 30% Through Q3, With a Growing Number of Firms Staying in Place
3 minute read
Deposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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
