You are here: / / 16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid
, ,

16-Ounce “Portion Cap Rule” for Sugary Drinks Invalid

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, the First Department determined the “portion cap rule” (limiting the volume of certain “sugary drink” products to 16 ounces) was invalid because the Board of Health “overstepped the boundaries of its lawfully delegated authority” when it promulgated the rule.  In so finding, the First Department applied the analysis used by the Court of Appeals in Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1 (1989):

We must … examine whether the Board of Health exceeded the bounds of its legislative authority as an administrative agency when it promulgated the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule. Boreali illustrates when the “difficult-to-demarcate line” between administrative rulemaking and legislative policymaking has been transgressed. In Boreali, the PHC [Public Health Council] promulgated regulations prohibiting smoking in a wide variety of public facilities following several years of failed attempts by members of the state legislature to further restrict smoking through new legislation. Boreali found the regulations invalid because, although the PHC was authorized by the Public Health Law to regulate matters affecting the public health, “the agency stretched that statute beyond its constitutionally valid reach when it used the statute as a basis for drafting a code embodying its own assessment of what public policy ought to be” (id. at 9). Boreali relied on four factors in finding that the PHC’s regulations were an invalid exercise of legislative power. First, Boreali found the PHC had engaged in the balancing of competing concerns of public health and economic costs, “acting solely on [its] own ideas of sound public policy” (id. at 12). Second, the PHC did not engage in the “interstitial” rule making typical of administrative agencies, but had instead written “on a clean slate, creating its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” (id.). Third, the PHC’s regulations concerned “an area in which the legislature had repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions” (id.). Boreali [*9]found that the separation of powers principles mandate that elected legislators rather than appointed administrators “resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends” (id.). Fourth, Boreali found that the agency had overstepped its bounds because the development of the regulations did not require expertise in the field of health (id. at 14).  Matter of New York Statewide Coalition … v NYC Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2013 NY Slip Op 05505, 1st Dept 7-30-13

 

You might also like
THE RECORDING AND DISCLOSURE OF INMATE PHONE CALLS DO NOT VIOLATE THE INMATES’ RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE 2020 AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 70, THE ANTI-SLAPP LAW, DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE PLAINTIFF’S PENDING DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE ROAD CONDITION WHICH CAUSED HIS SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
TWO IRRELEVANT PROBATION CONDITIONS STRUCK, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES SURVIVE A WAIVER OF APPEAL BUT MUST BE PRESERVED; AS-APPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ARE PRECLUDED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGING BILLING FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY ATTORNEYS NOT ADMITTED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
PASSING REFERENCE IN A CONTRACT TO A ‘TERMS AND CONDITIONS’ PAGE THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT REVIEWED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT SERVE TO INCORPORATE THE PAGE INTO THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant... Lawsuit Alleging Lehman Brothers’ Substitution of Toxic Securities for High...