As New York cannabis retail licensing proceeds at a snail’s pace, countless businesses are openly selling marijuana products out of unlicensed stores and smoke shops. It is obvious to anyone walking through New York City that the city has been unable to reign in these “businesses.” After allegedly sending cease and desist notices to those business, the city is now targeting landlords of those retail spaces.
New York City’s lawsuits against unlicensed cannabis dispensary landlords
This week, the City began filing lawsuits against unlicensed dispensaries and their landlords. One litigation that is a good example of the tactics and strategy the city is utilizing is The City of New York v. The Land and Building Known as 14 First Avenue, et al., Index No: 450378/2023 (“Land Building”.) The suit alleges that undercover, underage police officers bought marijuana at each of the shops on three occasions in December and those premises did not have a CAURD license to sell marijuana.
In each filing, the city demands financial penalties from both the landlords and store owners. The City is relying on the same public nuisance laws that usually are used when landlord refuse or fail to evict tenants that operate brothels and drug dens. Pursuant to Section 7-703 of the Administrative Code, a “public nuisance” includes a building that is being used for the purpose of a business, activity or enterprise which is not licensed as required by law. As landlords (and everyone) are likely aware, it is illegal to process, distribute for sale or sell any cannabis or cannabis product within the state without obtaining a license or permit authorized by law.
The Land Building litigation
In Land Building, the City alleges that the Landlord owned, leased, used, maintained or conducted the subject premises as a place wherein cannabis is sold without a CAURD license as is required by law. It notes that at this time, the only type of license authorizing the sale of cannabis in New York State is a CAURD license. The City further asserts that the Defendant tenant/operator(s) of the subject premises, has/have a duty to be aware of the unlicensed sale of cannabis at the subject premises, and that a corporation is liable for the conduct of its agents (or employees) through whom it conducts its business– so long as they act within the scope of their authority, real or apparent.
The City is seeking a judgment: a) permanently enjoining such public nuisance; b) directing the sheriff to seize and remove from the subject premises all material, equipment and instrumentalities used in the creation and maintenance of the public nuisance; c) directing the sale by the sheriff of such property; and d) closing the subject premises for a period of one (1) year from the posting of the judgment. The City is also seeking a judgment against the defendants ordering that each defendant pay a penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each day that such defendant intentionally conducted, maintained or permitted the public nuisance.
What happens next
From a program management perspective, it’s encouraging to see enforcement taken seriously. We have periodically documented how lack of enforcement in California, for example, has created an unfair dynamic for compliant operators, and directly contributed to that program’s ills.
It will be interesting to watch this litigation play out, and to see whether such lawsuits have the desired “chilling effect” on unlicensed cannabis dispensaries throughout New York City.
