County attorney outlines civil and regulatory tools to target unlicensed cannabis storefronts

At the April 22 Public Safety Committee meeting, county legal counsel reviewed the “full waterfront” of local enforcement tools to address unlicensed retail cannabis sales, recommending the committee first map the extent of unlicensed operations before picking remedies.

Maury (County legal counsel) told the committee the preferred early approach would be a civil landlord remedy under Real Property Actions and Procedures Law (RPL) section 715‑a. Under that approach, municipalities or landlords can use mystery shoppers or investigators to document unlicensed sales, notify owners and require owners to file eviction petitions; if an owner fails to act within five days the municipality may step into the landlord’s shoes and pursue eviction and civil remedies. Maury said the 715‑a standard was lowered in 2024 so municipalities need only show premises are “customarily or habitually used for the unlicensed retail sale of cannabis.”

Remedies available through a 715‑a proceeding include eviction, civil penalties up to five times the rent for the period of the use, reasonable costs and attorney fees, and joint and several liability for respondents. Maury described evidence used in a New York County example where a landlord’s agent acted as a mystery shopper, made multiple purchases, and documented signage and price lists as part of the proof.

A second option is adopting a local civil regulatory system (modeled on Office of Cannabis Management enforcement), which would require a local law to designate an enforcing agency, adopt inspection procedures and a complaint system, and allow notices of violation with fines (Maury said fines in other jurisdictions run roughly $100 to $10,000). That approach typically requires more local staffing and procedures to report to the state OCM.

Maury also described higher‑level remedies: seizure of cannabis products (with practical questions about safe storage and disposition), sealing a building where the sale poses an imminent threat to public health and welfare (which triggers an expedited hearing), and injunctive relief to shut a business. He recommended the working group narrow membership, gather data on how many unlicensed stores exist, who operates and owns the properties, and use mystery‑shopper evidence to support 715‑a enforcement where appropriate.

Committee members and officials raised practical questions. Mike (committee member) asked why criminal charges aren’t used more aggressively; the district attorney Matt and Derek (law enforcement) replied that criminal penalties for marijuana have been reduced since legalization and that resources should prioritize higher‑harm drugs, making civil enforcement a more realistic route. Derek added that civil enforcement lets municipalities use non‑law‑enforcement investigators (for example, environmental health or “mystery shoppers”) to collect evidence.

The committee did not adopt a local law at the meeting; members directed staff and the working group to narrow membership, map the locations of suspected unlicensed sellers and continue coordination with the Office of Cannabis Management on specific cases already under review.

Ending: The working group will further study the scope of unlicensed retail activity and prepare recommended enforcement steps, likely starting with data collection and targeted civil actions (RPL 715‑a) rather than broad regulatory adoption.