State v. Philip Morris Incorporated
Decision Date | 23 April 2009 |
Docket Number | 250N. |
Citation | 61 A.D.3d 575,877 N.Y.S.2d 291,2009 NY Slip Op 03105 |
Parties | STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED et al., Respondents, and CAROLINA TOBACCO COMPANY et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 22, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from, granted motions to compel arbitration, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
This declaratory judgment action was commenced by the State against numerous cigarette manufacturers and relates to the tobacco settlement reached between, among others, the State and certain cigarette manufacturers. In another appeal concerning the settlement, the Court of Appeals provided the following narrative regarding the settlement:
New York State's "qualifying statute" is codified in article 13-G of the Public Health Law. Pursuant to the statute, NPMs selling cigarettes in New York must make annual escrow deposits. The amount of money a particular NPM must deposit annually is based on the number of "units sold" by that manufacturer. "Units sold," in turn, is determined by the amount of excise tax collected by the State on packs of the manufacturer's products. The State, however, has maintained a policy, both before and after the State entered into the MSA, that cigarettes sold on tribal lands within the State are exempt from taxation. Because of both the manner in which "units sold" is calculated and the State's policy regarding cigarettes sold on tribal lands, NPMs who sell cigarettes on tribal lands are not required to make annual escrow deposits.
PMs complained to the State that it "does not diligently enforce" the qualifying statute as required by the MSA because of the State's policy regarding cigarettes sold on tribal lands. The PMs believe that the State is required under the MSA to collect escrow deposits on sales of cigarettes on tribal lands,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
270 N. Broadway Tenants Corp. v. Round Oaks Props., LLC
...agent for Round Oaks, Milio did not have a direct interest in the ownership of the subject property ( see State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 61 A.D.3d 575, 578, 877 N.Y.S.2d 291;see also Mixon v. TBV, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 144, 156–157, 904 N.Y.S.2d 132;cf. Triangle Pac. Bldg. Prods. Corp. ......
-
Harris v. Harris
...Lichtenstein is not "aggrieved" within the meaning of CPLR 5511 and may not appeal (see e.g. State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 61 A.D.3d 575, 578, 877 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1st Dept. 2009], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 898, 912 N.Y.S.2d 568, 938 N.E.2d 1002 [2010] ). Contrary to defendants-res......
-
Hermitage Ins. Co. v. 186-190 Lenox Rd., LLC
...possible future interests is too remote and contingent to give her standing in this appeal (see State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 61 A.D.3d 575, 578, 877 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1st Dept.2009], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 898, 912 N.Y.S.2d 568, 938 N.E.2d 1002 [2010] ; Blake Realty v. Shiller, ......
-
Law Offices of Seema Verma PLLC v. Citigroup, Inc. (In re Eisenberg)
...Eisenberg's Revocable Trust to the extent it suspended Hamada's appointment as trustee ( see CPLR 5511; State of New York v. Philip Morris Inc., 61 A.D.3d 575, 877 N.Y.S.2d 291 [2009], appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 898, 912 N.Y.S.2d 568, 938 N.E.2d 1002 [2010] ). Even assuming arguendo that Ve......