NY Judge Invalidates Order That Forced Cannabis Store to Close

Customers shop for marijuana products at Catalyst Cannabis Dispensary in Santa Ana, Calif., on Feb. 18, 2021. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

NEW YORK CITY—As disputes over the legal status of cannabis and its sale continue, New York City businesses that sell or seek to sell it gained a modest victory on Oct. 29 when a judge ruled that Operation Padlock to Protect, a statute that gave police broad scope to close down such businesses, violated their right to due process.

In his decision, New York State Supreme Court Judge Kevin Kerrigan ruled in favor of Cloud Corner, a store located on Francis Lewis Boulevard in Queens, finding due process violations in the administrative hearings in which representatives for the store challenged its closure.

The judge found that New York City Sheriff Anthony Miranda could not legally disregard the findings of an administrative hearing that went in Cloud Corner’s favor.

Cloud Corner, which police shut down early in September after finding that it sold cannabis-related products, challenged city officials’ disregarding the issues raised in a hearing before the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH).

The judge agreed with Cloud Corner that giving officials freedom to enforce or disregard OATH hearings as they see fit violates the principle of due process.

“Application by Petitioner to challenge the final determination issued by the Officer of the City Sheriff and to challenge the Constitutionality of NYC Administrative Code Sections 7-551 and 7-552 is granted,” the judge wrote in the ruling filed on Tuesday.

“The immediate Order of Closure issued on Sept. 3, 2024, and the final decision on Order of Closure issued on Sept. 16, 2024, by the Office of the City Sheriff are hereby vacated.”

The judge ordered the sheriff to remove the seal and reopen the premises immediately.

The sheriff’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It is legal for adults 21 years and older in New York City to possess up to 3 ounces of cannabis. It is also permissible to store up to 5 pounds of cannabis in one’s home and to keep up to 24 grams of concentrated cannabis outside one’s home.

But businesses marketing cannabis over the counter must have a license and post a city-approved license decal on or near their front door.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams and law enforcement officials in his administration have taken an aggressive stance against unlicensed dealers. On May 7, the mayor announced the launch of Operation Padlock to Protect, with the explicit aim of shutting down unlicensed cannabis sellers.

“The proliferation of unlicensed smoke and cannabis shops in New York City is one of the biggest quality of life issues facing New Yorkers,” said Ingrid P. Lewis-Martin, chief adviser to the mayor.

On July 17, Adams and his then-police commissioner Edward Caban, who later resigned amid federal corruption charges, announced the arrest of illegal cannabis dealers in the Bronx who allegedly operated a warehouse containing millions of dollars’ worth of the substance. Authorities also announced the closing of a smoke shop that allegedly hid cannabis products in its air vents. The enforcement actions took place under the auspices of Operation Padlock to Protect, the same statute used against Cloud Corner and other distributors and merchants in the city.

That same month, the mayor announced that 779 cannabis dealers had closed as a result of his initiative, and the city had seized more than $41 million of illegal products.

Cloud Corner is not the only entity to have challenged the fairness of the OATH hearing process.

Some law firms advertise attorney services for people facing OATH hearings, on the grounds that aspects of the procedure are not fully transparent and may turn partly on details that the ordinary person might not be trained to look out for.

A page on the nyc.gov website spells out procedures for appellants in prescheduled OATH hearings to follow, encouraging them to bring any documents or witnesses that may support their case, and advising them that hearings will be recorded but that appellants themselves may not record what takes place.

It promises appellants that they will receive a decision from an unspecified hearing officer within 30 days of the hearing.