Scores of Shuttered Cannabis Shops May Get a New Shot at Reopening After Court Ruling
Scores of shuttered cannabis shops across New York City may have a new opportunity to challenge closure orders issued by Sheriff Anthony Miranda and potentially reopen, after a judge ruled on Tuesday that a recently enacted local padlock law didn’t provide sufficient due process.
Challenges Continue
City and state officials vowed shut-downs will continue and, in interviews, lawyers and officials agreed that the ruling won’t do much to challenge the law in its entirety in the short term.
Operation Padlock to Protect, launched in May, sent sheriff and NYPD officers to inspect stores and order them closed for as long as a year for unlicensed cannabis sales.
Under the law authorizing the operation, a shop can be sealed immediately if officers determine there is an imminent threat to public safety, such as selling near a school. The stores are then entitled to an administrative hearing to review the closure order.
Judge Rules in Favor of Cloud Corner on Francis Lewis Boulevard in Queens
In response, Supreme Court Judge Kevin Kerrigan ruled that while the sheriff’s office can disregard the determination of the administrative court, it must still provide a rational basis for its decision and that it had failed to do so. The judge ruled that the store in question, Cloud Corner on Francis Lewis Boulevard in Queens, must be allowed to reopen.
Due Process Violated
But Kerrigan’s order went further, finding that it was a violation of due process for the sheriff’s office to close the business without offering a meaningful way to challenge that decision. “There’s no ability to even fight with the sheriff, he does whatever the hell he wants,” said attorney Lance Lazarro. “He’s the judge, jury and executioner.”
Massive Closures and Criticisms
The city has closed more than 1,200 businesses and seized more than $82 million in products under Operation Padlock to Protect, according to figures provided by the Mayor’s Office. The sheriff’s office has continued to padlock some businesses even after administrative courts have ruled in favor of dismissing closure orders.
Lawyers Unhappy with the Law
“Legal cannabis stores are being unfairly targeted and wrongly shut down by an overzealous law enforcement action,” said Joshua Bachman, a lawyer who represents several clients with shops that have been inspected under Operation Padlock to Protect. “The ruling is a hard-fought victory for these shop owners and a much-needed check on the sheriff’s office’s unchecked powers.”
City and State Officials Defend Enforcement Protocols
Illegal smoke shops and their dangerous products endanger young New Yorkers and our quality of life, and we continue to padlock illicit storefronts and protect communities from the health and safety dangers posed by illegal operators,” said Liz Garcia, a spokesperson for Mayor Eric Adams. “It’s business as usual,” said Dan Haughney, the director of enforcement and investigations at the state Office of Cannabis Management.
Conclusion
The ruling has left many wondering what the future holds for the hundreds of shuttered cannabis shops across New York City. While the judge’s decision may provide a glimmer of hope for those who have been affected by Operation Padlock to Protect, it remains to be seen whether the ruling will have a significant impact on the law itself.
FAQs
Q: Will the ruling have a significant impact on the law?
A: No, lawyers and officials agree that the ruling won’t do much to challenge the law in its entirety in the short term.
Q: What is the current state of the law?
A: The law authorizes the sheriff’s office to inspect stores and order them closed for as long as a year for unlicensed cannabis sales.
Q: What is the current status of the court case?
A: The city has filed a notice of appeal following the ruling.
Q: What does the future hold for the hundreds of shuttered cannabis shops across New York City?
A: The ruling may provide a glimmer of hope for those who have been affected by Operation Padlock to Protect, but it remains to be seen whether the ruling will have a significant impact on the law itself.
