You are here: / / NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT...

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined a New York City Local Law (Local Law 152), which included electronic or e-cigarettes in the law’s smoking ban, did not violate the “one subject” rule in the New York State Constitution. Although the court found that the constitutional prohibition only applies to state statutes, it noted that the Municipal Home Rule Law and the New York City Charter have a similar prohibition. The idea behind the “one subject” rule is to prevent a statute which ostensibly relates to a particular subject from including “hidden” provisions which address another unrelated subject:

Municipal Home Rule Law § 20(3) states that “[e]very such local law shall embrace only one subject. The title shall briefly refer to the subject matter”; the New York City Charter provides that “[e]very local law shall embrace only one subject. The title shall briefly refer to the subject-matter” (NY City Charter § 32).

Local Law 152 does not violate those requirements. It was titled “A Local Law to amend the administrative code …, in relation to the regulation of electronic cigarettes.” The regulation of electronic cigarettes was the only subject of the bill and that subject was clearly stated in its title. Therefore, the bill met the transparency requirement of the one-subject rule and adequately apprised the City Council and members of the public of its contents and purpose … . NYC C.L.A.S.H. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00042, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (E-CIGARETTE BAN, NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW  OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER)/ONE SUBJECT RULE (E-CIGARETTE BAN, NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER)/E-CIGARETTES (NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW BANNING E-CIGARETTES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW OR THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 193, IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES, AND LABOR LAW 215, TERMINATION FOR COMPLAINING OF THE IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
Accident Occurred Within 15-Day Grace Period Allowed for Repair of Road Defects/City Could Not Be Held Liable
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 30-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT A DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO ALLEGE THAT “BUT FOR” DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE PREVAILED REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT (FIRST DEPT).
THE THREAT MADE BY DEFENDANT WAS PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE CIVILIAN POPULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERRORISM STATUTE (PENAL LAW 490.20); THE CONVICTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
EVEN THOUGH THE US SUPREME COURT CASE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR CELL SITE LOCATION DATA WAS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, PRESERVATION OF THAT ISSUE FOR APPEAL IS STILL NECESSARY; A DEFENDANT MAY BE INDICTED FOR BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE AND INTENTIONAL MURDER; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTINGS AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WERE APPROPRIATE (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

BIG APPLE MAP RAISED QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY WAS AWARE OF MANHOLE-SIDEWALK... PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT...