Boreali v. Axelrod

517 N.E.2d 1350 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Surgeon General of the United States began warning the American public that tobacco smoking poses a serious health hazard. Even non-smokers face a risk of lung cancer as a result of their exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment. As a consequence, smoking in the workplace and other indoor settings has become a cause for serious concern among health professionals. The State Legislature enacted a bill in 1975 restricting smoking in certain designated areas, specifically, libraries, museums, theaters, and public transportation facilities. More expansive restrictions on smoking in public places were unsuccessful. In late 1986 the Public Health Council (PHC) took action on its own. It acted pursuant to the broad grant of authority contained in its enabling statute. PHC published proposed rules, held public hearings, and, in February of 1987, promulgated the final set of regulations prohibiting smoking in a wide variety of indoor areas that are open to the public, including schools, hospitals, auditoriums, food markets, stores, banks, taxicabs, and limousines. restaurants with seating capacities of more than 50 people are required to provide contiguous nonsmoking areas sufficient to meet customer demand. Employers were required to provide smoke-free work areas for nonsmoking employees and to keep common areas free of smoke, with certain limited exceptions for cafeterias and lounges. Affected businesses were permitted to prohibit all smoking on the premises if they so choose. Expressly excluded were restaurants with seating capacities of less than 50, conventions, trade shows, bars, private homes, private automobiles, private social functions, hotel, and motel rooms, and retail tobacco stores. Boreali (Ps) sought declaratory relief against the enforcement of the regulations. The trial court concluded that the challenged regulations were inconsistent with the policies expressed in Public Health Law article 13-E and were, accordingly, invalid and unenforceable. The Appellate Division affirmed. Observing that the PHC's antismoking regulations '[effectuated] a profound change in social and economic policy' and that the agency had obviously based the details of its regulatory scheme as much on concerns about 'economic impact' as on considerations of public health, the court held that the PHC must be deemed to have acted in excess of its delegated authority. D appealed.