Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historical Preserv.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historical Preserv. 2013 NY Slip Op 32442(U) October 8, 2013 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 2218-13 Judge: Jr., George B. Ceresia Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY In the Matter of the Application of the NYC C.L.A.S.H., INC., Petitioner, For an Order and Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and Other Relief Index No. 2218-13 RJI No. Ol-13-ST4562 -againstTHE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION & HISTORIC PRESERVATION and ROSE HARVEY, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION & IDS TORIC PRESERVATION, Respondents. Special Term Hon. George B . Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding Appearances: JOSHPE LAW GROUP LLP Attorneys for Petitioner (Edward A. Paltzik, Esq., Of Counsel) 1040 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1101 New York, New York 10018 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorneys for Respondents (Douglas J. Goglia, Esq., Of Counse!) The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 [* 2] DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice Petitioner New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, or NYC C.L.A.S.H. (hereinafter petitioner) is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to' advancing and promoting the interests of smokers, and protecting the legal_. rights of smokers. In February 2013, respondents New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation and Rose Harvey, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (hereinafter collectively referred to as respondents) adopted a regulation - 9 NYCRR § 386.1 -: which establishes outdoor no-smoking areas within certain parks, historic sites and recreational facilities. According to respondents, 9 NYCRR § 386.1 was p!omulgated to "allow ... our patrons to enjoy the outdoors, breathe fresh air, walk, sw.im, exercise and experience State Parks' amenities and programs without being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke and tobacco litter" (Talluto Aff., Ex. A at p. 25). "Examples of areas that may be .designated as No Smoking Areas include: playgrounds, swimming pool decks, beaches, sport·or athletic fields and courts, recreational facilities, picnic shelters, fishing piers, marinas, historic sites, . . group camps, park preserves, gardens, concessions, educational programming or other areas where visitors congregate, including within fifty feet of entrances to buildings" (9 NYCRR § 386. 1[aJ[l ]). The challenged regulation also entirely bans ~,utdoor smoking in State parks -2- [* 3] located within the confines ofNew York City (see 9 NYCRR § 386.l[a][2]). In April 2013, petitioner commenced the instant "hybrid" CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action seeking: (1) a declaration that 9 NYCRR § 386.1 is unconstitutional as violative of the separation of powers doctrine; (2) a declaration that 9 NYCRR § 386.1 is arbitrary and capricious; (3) an order enjoining and pennanently restraining respondents from implementing or enforcing 9 NYCRR § 386.1; (4) an order enjoining and permanently restraining respondents from implementing or enforcing any policy, rule or regulation in any way prohibiting or restricting outdoor smoking or tobacco use of any kind in state parks, historic sites or any other facility or property under respondents' jurisdiction; and ( 5) an order enjoining and permanently restraining respondents from installing "No-Smoking," "Smoking is Prohibited" and "Tobacco Use is Prohibited" signs on respondents ' property, and further directing respondents to remove any such signage already installed on respondents' property. Respondents answered and oppose the relief sought. DISCUSSION Here, petitioner contends that respondents usurped the role of the Legislature by promulgating a regulation designed to set public policy. In support of its assertion that 9 NYCRR § 386.1 contravenes respondents' administrative rule-making function, petitioner cites Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d I [ 1987]), the landmark Court of Appeals decision regarding constitutional separation of powers. For their part, respondents rely upon the broad -3- [* 4] language of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law and maintain that the subject regulation is consistent with their expressly delegated authority to protect the health, safety and welfare ofpark patrons, and to manage their facilities (see Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law § 3. 09 [2]; [5]). To this end, respondents aver that Boreali is not controlling in this matter. I. The Separation of Powers Doctrine "[T]he constitutional principle of separation of powers, implied by the separate grants of power to each of the coordinate branches of government, requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch's responsibility is to implement those policies" (Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d 781, 784 [1995] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Saratoga County Chamber of Comn1erce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 821 [2003]; Ellicott Group. LLC v State ofN.Y. Exec. Dept. Off. of Gen. Servs., 85 AD3d 48, 54 [2011 ]). Although "there need not be a specific and detailed legislative expression authorizing a particular executive act as long as 'the basic policy decisions underlying the [executive action] have been made and articulated by the Legislature"' (Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d at 785, quoting Matter of New York State Health Facilities Assn. v Axelrod, 77 NY2d 340, 348 [ 1991 ]), "when the Executive acts incor~sistently with the Legislature, or usurps its prerogatives, ... the doctrine of separation is violated" (Clark v Cuomo, 66 NY2d 185, 189 [1985]; see Bourquin v Cuomo, 85 NY2d at 785; Roberts vHealth &Hosps. Com., 87 AD3d 311, 322 (2011], lv denied 17NY3d 717 [2011]). -4- [* 5] II. Boreali v Axelrod Overview In Boreali, the Court ofAppeals held that the Public Health Council (hereinafter PHC) went beyond its lawfully delegated authority when it promulgated regulations prohibiting smoking in a wide variety of indoor areas open to the public (see Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 14). 1 The Court reasoned that the regulations were invalid because the PHC "stretched th[e] [Public Health Law] beyond its constitutionally valid reach when it ... draft[ed] a code embodying its own assessment of what public policy ought to be" raoreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 9). Four "coalescing circumstances" persuaded the Court that "the difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making ha[d] been transgressed" (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 11). Those circumstances are as follows: (1) whether the regulation is based solely upon economic and social concerns; (2) whether the regulation created a comprehensive set of rules in the absence oflegislative guidance; (3) whether the agency was acting in an area in which the Legislature has repeatedly tried, but failed, to reach agreement; and (4) whether the regulation involved issues which required no special expertise or technical competence in the agency's field (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at I 014). "No one factor ... may validate or invalidate a regulation ... the four factors must be viewed in combination" (New York Statewide Coalition ofHispanic Chambers ofCommerce v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2013 NY Slip Op 3 0609[U], *13 [Sup 1 In 2003, the Legislature enacted an amended Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibited smoking in a significant number of indoor public areas (see Public Health Law§ 1399-o). -5- [* 6] Ct, NY County 2013] affd _ AD3d _ , 970 NYS2d 200 [2013 ), citing Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 11). III. Application to the Instant Matter In urging the Court to invalidate 9 NYCRR § 3 86.1, petitioner devotes the crux of its argument to the second and third Boreali factors. 2 With regard to the second factor, the Court of Appeals considered the imposition of smoking restrictions to be fraught with "difficult social problems," which must be resolved by "making choices among competing ends" and, thus, an area especially suited for legislative guidance (Boreali, 71 NY2d at 13). While the Legislature ultimately enacted a comprehensive law concerning indoor smoking many years after Boreali was rendered (see Public Health Law§ 1399-n et seq.), respondents do not seriously dispute the absence of a legislatively established outdoor tobacco use policy. Therefore, it cannot be said that, in adopting 9 NYCRR § 386.1, respondents "merely fill[ ed] in the details of broad legislation describing the over-all policies to be implemented" (Boreali, 71 NY2d at 13). Nor does the broad language of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law empower respondents to promulgate rules regulating conduct bearing any tenuous relationship to park patrons' health or welfare (see Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law§ 3.09). Accordingly, the Court finds that respondents extended their reach 2 Petitioner has taken the position that the first Boreali faci:or is not "relevant to the instant case" (Petitioner's Memorandum of Law, p. 9). Respondents, however, deny that they have "constructed, or even attempted to construct, a regulatory scheme laden with exceptions based solely upon economic and social concerns" (Respondents' Memorandum of Law, p. 9). -6- [* 7] beyond interstitial rule-making and into the realm of legisl.~ing. As to the third factor, the present situation is strikingly similar to that ofthe·smoking ban discussed in Boreali. Between the 200 1-2002 and 20i3-20 14 sessions, both the Senate and Assembly have attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to target smoking in public parks (see ~ 2013 NY Assembly Bill A553; 2013. NY Senate-Ass~mbly Bill 8464, A450; 2011 NY Senate-Assembly Bill S6564, A6156; 20 11 NY Assembly Bill A l 532; 2009 NY Assembly Bill A l 837; 2007 NY Assembly Bill . A732~; . 2007NY .... · Assembly Bill A306; 2003 NY Assembly Bill A.ssembly Bill Al402; 2005 NY -. A738; · 2~01 NY Assembly Bill A8675). Members of the Assembly, in particular, have repeatedly ir:troduced such bills only to have the legislation referred to a Standing Committee (see e.g_._2013 NY Assembly Bill A553; 2013 NY Senate-Assembly Bill S464, A450; 2011 NY A~sembly Bill A 1532; 200_ NY 9 Assembly Bill A 1837). In the Court's view, this is a strong indication that the Legislature is uncertain of how to address the issue. As the Court of, Appeals aptly stated, "repeated failures by the Legislature . : . do not automatically entitle <!.n administrative agency to take it upon itself to fill the vacuum and impose a solution ofit.Rown" (Boreali, 71 NY2d at 13). Turning to the fourth factor, respondents concede tha~ special expertise or technical competence is no longer required to understand that secondhand_ tobacco smoke is deleterious to the health of nonsmokers, especially children (see Respondents' Memorandum of Law, p. 11). -"[W] hen viewed in combination," the Court- find~" that the Boreali factors strongly weigh in favor of invalidating 9 NYCRR § 386.l (Bor~:~Ji~ 71 NY2d at 11). The Court, -7- [* 8] therefore, concludes that, like the PHC in Boreali, respondents exceeded their statutory authority, thereby violating the separation of powers doctrine. Finally, it bears mentioning that nothing in this decision is intended circumscribe respondents' legitimate powers. Nor is this decision intended to express an opinion on the wisdom of outdoor smoking regulations, provided that they are enacted by the government body with the authority to do so. In light of the foregoing determination, the Court need not reach petitioner's alternative argument that the subject regulation is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly it is hereby, DECLARED that 9 NYCRR § 386.1 is invalid as violative of the separation of powers doctrine; and it is further ORD.ER.ED that respondents are enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing 9 NYCRR § 386.l; and it is further ORDER.ED that respondents remove any "No-Smoking," "Smoking is Prohibited," and "Tobacco Use is Prohibited" signs previously installed on their property in connection with the implementation and/or enforcement of9 NYCRR § 386.1; and it is further ORDERED that, to the extent respondents intended to install additional "NoSmoking," "Smoking is Prohibited," and ~Tobacco Use is Prohibited" signs consistent with the implementation and/or enforcement of 9 NYCRR § 386.1, they are enjoined and permanently restrained from doing so; and it is further -8- [* 9] ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is granted as set forth above. 3 This Decision/Order/Judgment is being returned to the Attorneys for Petitioner. All original supporting documentation is being filed with the C0unty Clerk's Office. The signing of this Decision/Order/Judgment shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel arc not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule relating to filing, entry and notice of entry. Dated: Troy, New York October 8, 2013 Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Petition, dated April 9, 2013; Verified, Petition, dated April 9~ 2013, with annexed exhibits; Affidavit of Audrey Silk, sworn to April 8, 2013; Memorandum of Law, dated April 9, 2013; '2. Verified Answer, dated July 8, 2013; Affidavit of Marc S. Talluto, sworn to July 8, 2013, with annexed exhibit; Memorandum of Law in Opposition, dated July 8, 2013; and 3. 3 Reply Affirmation of Edward A. Paltz.ik, Esq., dated July 15, 2013. In so doing, the Court declines to issue an order preemptivdy enjoining and/qr permanently restraining respondents from implementing or enforcing any futun~ policy, rule or regulation prohibiting or restricting outdoor smoking or tobacco use in state parks, histor:c :::ites .or any other facility or property under respondents' jurisdiction. -9-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
