Matter of Buenos Hill Inc. v. Saratoga Springs Planning Bd.
2025 NY Slip Op 04064
N.Y. App. Div.2025Background
- In 2021, New York enacted the Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act, allowing adult use and local licensing of cannabis
- Municipalities could opt out of allowing cannabis businesses for nine months after the law passed; Saratoga Springs did not opt out
- Buenos Hill Inc. owns property in Saratoga Springs and objected to a neighboring marijuana dispensary permit
- Buenos Hill commenced a hybrid CPLR Article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, challenging the Planning Board's issuance of a special use permit and arguing federal and state law violations
- Petitioner argued the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) preempts New York's Cannabis Law, and that limiting the local "opt-out" violates state home rule protections
- The Supreme Court dismissed the action for lack of standing regarding preemption and unripeness regarding the home rule claim
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal Preemption (CSA v. Cannabis) | CSA preempts state cannabis law; state law is invalid under Supremacy Clause | No private right under CSA; no standing | No standing; challenge does not bar judicial review generally |
| Standing as State Taxpayer | Taxpayer status provides standing to challenge legislative action | No illegal expenditure of state funds; no standing shown | No taxpayer standing; no qualifying government wrongdoing alleged |
| Home Rule Protection | Limiting opt-out window violates municipal home rule rights in NY Constitution | Claim is unripe; hypothetical future harm | Unripe; no actual or imminent harm alleged; may be brought later |
| Standing as Citizen/Property Owner | Argued newly on appeal: national citizenship confers standing, or as property owner | Not raised below; argument abandoned | Rejected; not properly preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 (federal government may regulate marijuana under CSA despite state laws)
- Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 95 NY2d 401 (common-law taxpayer standing requirements)
- Boryszewski v. Brydges, 37 NY2d 361 (judicial scrutiny of legislative action and taxpayer standing)
- Matter of 61 Crown St., LLC v. City of Kingston Common Council, 221 AD3d 1090 (standing for municipal challenges; state law interpretation)
- Church of St. Paul & St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 NY2d 510 (ripeness for declaratory judgment actions)
- American Ins. Assn. v. Chu, 64 NY2d 379 (ripeness; anticipatory harm and declaratory relief)
- Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801 (state finance law and taxpayer standing requirements)