A running list of all lawsuits filed against New York Cannabis regulators
As New York’s Office of Cannabis Management launches applications for general marijuana business licensing, the agency is still fending off multiple lawsuits.
The Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary program was halted in August, when a judge ordered an injunction preventing more CAURD dispensaries from opening. Plaintiffs in that case settled with the state, which allowed CAURD licensing to resume.
Since then, several plaintiffs have filed several lawsuits against the OCM in state and federal court. Some suits take issue with specific OCM regulations, while others seek to undo the MRTA, which legalized cannabis in New York.
Here is a list of active and inactive lawsuits plaintiffs have filed against state cannabis regulators since the latest CAURD injunction. Below that are lawsuits previously filed against the OCM.
Plaintiff(s): Friendly Flower 1 Inc., Friendly Flower 2 Inc., Rockaway Moonshot LLC, Hop Stock & Barrell IV LLC, BK Greenery LLC, Emeraldz Inc. and MariaGiovanna LLC.
Date filed: Jan. 29, 2024
Lawyer/law firm: Helbraun & Levey, LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: In this lawsuit, plaintiffs are seven women who applied for cannabis retail licenses during New York’s first general licensing period beginning Oct. 4, 2023. The plaintiffs argue that the OCM did not notify any applicants that members of certain social equity groups – service-disabled veterans, people from certain geographies and distressed farmers – would receive three spots on the licensing queue, which gives them a distinct advantage. Plaintiffs’ attorneys say they might have decided not to apply, if they’d known this ahead of time, they might have decided not to apply in the first round. Plaintiffs also point to other problems in the queuing process that suggest errors in methodology.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- A declaration that the Queue is arbitrary and capricious as it was issued without rational basis in fact or law.
- An injunction from awarding any adult-use cannabis retail licenses from first-round applications.
- Requirement that the OCM publicly disclose the exact methodology they will use in the licensing process.
- Requirement that OCM re-issue queue numbers for retail and microbusiness general licensing applicants.
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Valencia AG, LLC
Date filed: Jan. 24, 2024
Lawyer/law firm: The Law Office of Robert P. Purcell, PLLC
Court: United States District Court Northern District of New York
Complaint: In this lawsuit, plaintiff Valencia AG of Jamesville, claims the social and economic equity provisions in New York’s cannabis licensing process violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by giving preference to women and people of color.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- A ruling stating that New York cannabis regulators may not charge different application fees for candidates on the basis of gender or race.
- An injunction preventing New York cannabis regulators from enforcing regulations and procedures in cannabis licensing that favor candidates on the basis of gender or race.
- An injunction preventing New York cannabis regulators from processing cannabis business applications from candidates who applied claiming social and economic equity status on the base of gender or race.
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Variscite NY Four, LLC and Variscite NY Five LLC
Date filed: Dec. 18, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP
Court: United States District Court Northern District of New York
Complaint: The plaintiffs, who applied for general licenses, argue that the CAURD program violates New York’s MRTA, which requires the CCB to open the window for all adult-use retail dispensary applications “at the same time.” They also claim the MRTA contains residency requirements to seek “extra priority” status in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- A ruling stating that New York’s CAURD program and aspects of its process for reviewing cannabis license applications are unconstitutional.
- An injunction preventing New York cannabis regulators from processing license applications received between the Oct. 4, 2023 to Dec. 18, 2023 application period.
- An injunction preventing New York cannabis regulators from processing CAURD applications.
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC; Cannabis Industry Victims Seeking Justice, LLC; Rennee Barachitta; Edwin De La Cruz; Eric R. De La Cruz; Phil Orenstein; Philip McManus; Robert Caemmerer; Richard R. McArthur; Ronnie Hickey; John and Jane Doe 1-15; XYZ Corporations 1-15
Date filed: Aug. 25, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Bartels & Feureisen LLP
Court: United States District Court Northern District of New York
Complaint: The lawsuit argues that the $200 million public/private cannabis Social Equity Investment Fund Gov. Kathy Hochul launched in 2022 violates federal law. In their complaint, plaintiffs say the fund amounts to “an illegal marijuana trafficking finance scheme.”
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- A ruling stating that the Social Equity Cannabis Investment Fund was created in violation of federal drug trafficking law.
- An injunction preventing New York State from using public or private funds “to engage in marijuana trafficking.”
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Buenos Hill Inc.
Date filed: Sept. 16, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Law Office of William R. DiCenzo
Court: Saratoga Supreme Court
Complaint: Property owner Buenos Hill, Inc., is suing 10 defendants, including the Saratoga Springs Planning Board, the City of Saratoga Springs and the New York Office of Cannabis Management.
In the suit, Buenos Hill, Inc., claims that when Saratoga Springs officials granted a permanent special use permit for a cannabis dispensary at 250 Washington Street/95 West Ave., the decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated lawful procedure.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- Annulment of Saratoga Springs Planning Board decision to grant the special use permit
- Declare Saratoga Springs’ Unified Development Ordinance unconstitutional, and enjoin officials from enforcing it
- An injunction of the MRTA
- Declaration that the MRTA is unconstitutional
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Leafly Holdings, Inc.; Stage One Cannabis, LLC (DBA: Stage One Dispensary); Rosanna St. John
Date filed: Sept. 18, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Phillips Lytle LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: Leafly Holdings, a company that connects cannabis customers with brands and retailers, claims the New York Office of Cannabis Management illegally targeted their business (and similar platforms) in their industry regulations.
Plaintiffs argue that OCM’s regulations surrounding non-plant-touching third-party platforms would essentially bar Leafly from doing business in New York. Leafly cites rules including one that prohibits retail dispensaries from “pay[ing] for marketing or promotion through a third-party platform, marketplace, or aggregator that lists cannabis products for sale”; and one that prohibits licensees from contracting with a “person or entity performing any function or activity directly involving the licensed activities authorized for the license type.”
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- Annulment of OCM regulations plaintiffs have identified, and claim arbitrarily target third-party platforms.
Status: Pending, with a temporary exemption to regulations for third-party platforms as the case proceeds.
–
Plaintiff(s): North Fork Distribution, Inc. (Cycling Frog); Sarene Craft Beer Distributors, LLC; Hemp Beverage Alliance, Inc.; One Stop Brew Shop, LLC.
Date filed: Aug. 4, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: Plaintiffs sued New York cannabis regulators after the Cannabis Control Board approved emergency regulations that effectively bans intoxicating hemp products.
Plaintiffs include Cycling Frog, a Washington state-based beverage company that sells beverages infused with hemp-derived cannabinoids; Serene Craft Beer Distributors, a Westchester County-based alcohol distributor which also sells hemp-derived cannabinoid beverages; One Stop Brew Shop, a Rochester craft beer retailer that also sells hemp-derived cannabinoid beverages and Hemp Beverage Alliance, Inc., a Colorado-based industry trade group.
In their complaint, plaintiffs say the measure the Cannabis Control Board passed for hemp products – including a required ratio of 15:1 CBD or other cannabinoids to THC in hemp infused products, among other rules – violates the MRTA. They argue the CCB acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner when they approved the rules, and failed to identify an “emergency” to justify the quickly enacted rules.
“There is no rationale given for the new requirements (CBD to THC ratio and per serving/package limits on THC) and, in fact … such requirements may actually prove to be dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare, the exact opposite of what Respondents are supposed to be trying to achieve,” the complaint reads.
Judge Thomas Marcelle agreed with the plaintiffs and, on Nov. 13, issued an injunction preventing regulators from enforcing the emergency regulations. The victory was short-lived, however, because the CCB formally adopted the rules as official regulations in a meeting just four days later.
The lawsuit remains active, but there haven’t been any case filings since the Nov. 13 injunction decision. Now, Cycling Frog is weighing its options for how to move forward, an attorney for the plaintiffs told NY Cannabis Insider.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction of the emergency regulations.
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): Carmine Fiore, William Norgard, Steve Mejia and Dominic Spaccio
Date filed: Aug. 2, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Clark Smith Villazor LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: The lawsuit argues that the OCM and CCB improperly limited eligibility for the CAURD program when they created it last year by only allowing “justice-involved individuals” who own a profitable “qualifying business.”.
The suit identifies plaintiffs in the case – Carmine Fiore, Steve Mejia, William Norgard and Dominic Spaccio – as service-disabled veterans who planned to pursue adult-use dispensary licenses.
In court documents, plaintiffs argue the CAURD program violates the U.S. Dormant Commerce Clause and the plain text of New York’s MRTA, which requires the CCB to open the window for all adult-use retail dispensary applications “at the same time.”
State officials settled with plaintiffs in early December. The settlement requires the CCB to provide retail licenses to the four service-disabled veterans who filed the suit. It also lifted the CAURD injunction, and requires the OCM to:
- Establish a taskforce for businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, and commit at least one OCM full-time employee to specialize in business development for those veterans.
- Create an educational campaign for service-disabled veterans who are interested in getting into the adult-use or medical markets.
- Develop a program to expand cannabis research into factors related to veterans’ health.
- Provide monthly updates to the plaintiffs on the progress of these efforts until they have been officially launched.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- An order declaring the CAURD program a violation of the MRTA and New York’s separation of powers doctrine.
- An order preventing regulators indefinitely from awarding or further processing any more CAURD licenses and/or from authorizing any more CAURD licensees to open adult-use retail dispensaries.
Status: Settled
–
Plaintiff(s): Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC; Cannabis Industry Victims Seeking Justice, LLC; Renne Barchitta; Edwin De La Cruz; Eric R. De La Cruz; Phil Orenstein; Philip McManus; Robert Caemmerer; Richard D. McArthur; Ronnie Hickey; John and Jane Does 1-15 and Corporations 1-15.
Date filed: June 20, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Bartels & Feureisen LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: The lawsuit argues that the OCM improperly promulgated rules for medical cannabis; adult-use packaging, labeling, marketing and advertising and testing labs.
Plaintiffs include New York-based anti-cannabis advocacy groups: Cannabis Impact Prevention Coalition, LLC. and Cannabis Industry Victims Seeking Justice; along with several individual members of these groups.
The suit claims New York cannabis regulators and government officials “are attempting to orchestrate a marijuana trafficking operation utilizing taxpayer funds and public employees and resources. Their blatant disregard of every major objective embodied in federal marijuana law directly conflicts with, and otherwise stands as an obstacle to, Congress’s mandate that production, possession and distribution of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, be prohibited unless approved by federal law.”
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- Enjoinment of rules the OCM passed for medical cannabis and labeling in order to bring them into compliance with federal law.
Status: Pending
–
Plaintiff(s): 125th Street Business District Management Association, Inc.
Date filed: April 26, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Law Office of Daniel Blumenstein
Court: New York County Supreme Court
Complaint: The lawsuit argued that the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and the OCM improperly sited a future CAURD dispensary at 248 West 125th Street.
The Plaintiff – 125th Street Business District Management Association, Inc. – is a corporation organized under the State of New York laws and provides supplemental services to the 125th Street Business Improvement District.
According to the complaint, the CAURD storefront falls within 500 feet of schools and community facilities. Siting an adult-use dispensary there, plaintiffs say, violates OCM’s guidance.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- Enjoinment and permanent restraining of state officials from implementing or enforcing the licensing of 248 West 125th Street as an Adult Use Retail Dispensary;
- Alternatively, invalidating the licensing of 248 West 125th Street as an Adult-use Retail Dispensary
- Alternatively, enjoining and permanently restraining state officials from implementing or enforcing the licensing of 248 West 125th Street as an Adult Use Retail Dispensary
Status: Dismissed
–
Plaintiff(s): Coalition for Access to Regulated & Safe Cannabis
Date filed: March 16, 2023
Lawyer/law firm: Feurstein Kulick LLP
Court: Albany Supreme Court
Complaint: The lawsuit alleges unconstitutional overreach and policymaking, egregious abdication of duties, and actions that put New Yorkers’ health and safety at risk.
The plaintiff is The Coalition for Access to Regulated & Safe Cannabis, which describes itself as “an unincorporated trade association” composed of registered organizations, parties that planned to pursue a dispensary license when the application window first opened, and physicians whose practices have suffered due to the state’s “neglect” of its medical cannabis program.
The group argues that the OCM violated the MRTA by starting the CAURD application process ahead of general cannabis retail applications.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- A ruling to compel state regulators to open up licensing for all retail dispensary applicants immediately.
Status: Resolved
–
Plaintiff(s): Variscite NY One, Inc.
Date filed: Sept. 26, 2022
Lawyer/law firm: Kernkamp Law
Court: United States District Court Northern District of New York
Complaint: Variscite filed suit in September, after the state – according to the complaint – found the entity was ineligible for a CAURD license because the company is 51% owned by Kenneth Gay, an individual who has no significant connection to New York and who has a cannabis conviction in Michigan. An individual named Jeffrey Jensen owns the other 49%.
CAURD rules require an applicant must have been convicted of a cannabis crime in New York and have a “significant presence” here.
This violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, the lawsuit argued, because the clause prohibits states from passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.
Plaintiff(s) seeks:
- An injunction preventing the state from processing more CAURD applications
- A declaration that the CAURD program violates the Dormant Commerce Clause
Status: Resolved
