NY City cannot ban sales of large sodas -judge
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, April 7, 2013, 12:01 a.m.
A judge on Monday invalidated New York City's plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments, one day before the new law was to take effect.
State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was “arbitrary and capricious” and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban.
The decision was a blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had touted the ban as a way to address what he has termed an obesity “epidemic.” But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers' personal liberty.
A spokesman for Bloomberg's office was not immediately available for comment.
The ban had prohibited the city's food-service businesses from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, though city officials had said they would not begin imposing $200 fines on offending businesses until June.
Bloomberg has made improving the health of New Yorkers part of his legacy. The soda ban had followed similar crackdowns on fat, sugar and salt and a smoking ban that has been replicated around the world.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Municipal bonds do another about-face
- Achieving proper credit balance
- Regular or Roth? Pick either
- Harsh winter sets back Western Pa. maple harvest
- Minorities crucial to filling Marcellus shale gas drilling jobs
- Diaper makers do due diligence
- Real estate goes techno
- CVS suit could be test case
- JPMorgan whistle-blower gets $64M for mortgage fraud tips
- Natural gas industry buoyed by advancing technology
- Prepaid cards start to elbow aside bank accounts