State v. Philip Morris Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1999 |
| Citation | 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 |
| Parties | The STATE of New York, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Respondents. The City of New York, et al., Class Member Appellants, Nassau County, et al., Class Member Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Brian J. Shoot, for Plaintiffs-Respondents.
Douglas S. Liebhafsky, for Defendants-Respondents.
Alan G. Krams, Janis Ettinger, Alan D. Scheinkman, for Class Member Appellants.
Owen B. Walsh, Norman I. Siegel, for Class Member Respondents.
SULLIVAN, J.P., ROSENBERGER, NARDELLI, ANDRIAS and FRIEDMAN, JJ.
Consent decrees and final judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered December 23, 1998, as amended by the order of the same court and Justice, entered April 16, 1999, in an action by the State of New York for harm sustained to itself and its political subdivisions as a result of defendants' allegedly illegal conduct in selling tobacco products in the State, inter alia, approving the intra-State allocation of the settlement funds to be received by the State under the Master Settlement Agreement settling numerous other lawsuits brought by other States against tobacco companies, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Orders, same court and Justice, entered December 23, 1998, denominated "Agreed Dismissal Order and Class Action Final Judgment", and December 24, 1998, which approved a replacement agreement with regard to defendant Liggett Group, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Given the competing interests involved, allocation of the Master Settlement Agreement funds on a 60/40 population/Medicaid spending basis is not unfair or unreasonable (see, Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2nd Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom. Lewy v. Weinberger, 464 U.S. 818, 104 S.Ct. 77, 78 L.Ed.2d 89). Concerning the procedural challenges to the approval process, appellants' claims that there was a rush to judgment are unconvincing inasmuch as each had at one point or another urged acceptance of one of the three settlement proposals, and that there was no impediment to any of the appellants opting out of the settlement and pursuing its own litigation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freedom Holdings Inc. v. Cuomo
...approval of the MSA is reflected in State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1998), aff'd, 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dep't 1999). 1. The MSA's Treatment of Cigarette Manufacturers The MSA divides cigarette manufacturers into several groups. The first group......
-
Reedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 02 Civ. 2939(AKH).
... ... Eliot SPITZER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, and Arthur J. Roth, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Taxation and Finance ... , the District of Columbia and several territories, and the four major cigarette companies, Philip Morris, Inc. ("Philip Morris," now Altria Group, Inc.), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. ("R.J.Reynolds"), ... ...
-
Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Cuomo
...cigarette consumption. New York v. Philip Morris, Inc., 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564, 569 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1998), aff'd, 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dep't 1999). Ten years have passed since the Master Settlement Agreement became effective. In that time, New York has reaped substant......
-
In re Raduazo
...99 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 742 (2000) ; State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564, 567 (Sup.Ct.1998), aff'd, 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1999) ; Jacobson & Warner, Litigation and Public Health Policy Making: The Case of Tobacco Control , 24 J. Health Pol. Pol'y & Law 769......
-
Privileges
...be disclosed. State of New York v. Philip Morris, Sup. Ct., New York Co. , 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1998), afd 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1999). High ranking government oicials enjoy a deliberative process privilege for information or documents that relate to a gov......
-
Table of cases
...§ 16:115 State of New York v. Philip Morris, Sup. Ct., New York Co. , 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1998), §affd 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1999), § 7:180 States v. Lourdes, 100 N.Y.2d 208, 762 N.Y.S.2d 1 (2003), § 16:60 State v. Adkison, 108 A.D.3d 1050, 969 N.Y.S.2d 6......
-
Privileges
...disclosed. State of New York v. Philip Morris, Sup. Ct., New York Co. , 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1998), af ’d 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1999). High ranking government oicials enjoy a deliberative process privilege for information or documents that relate to a gove......
-
Privileges
...be disclosed. State of New York v. Philip Morris, Sup. Ct., New York Co., 179 Misc.2d 435, 686 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1998), affd 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1st Dept. 1999). High ranking government officials enjoy a deliberative process privilege for information or documents that relate to a g......