State v. Philip Morris Inc.

263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7984
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 400 (State v. Philip Morris Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Philip Morris Inc., 263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—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 [401]*401result 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 F2d 61, 73, cert denied sub nom. Lewy v Weinberger, 464 US 818). 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. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Andrias and Friedman, JJ. [See, 179 Misc 2d 435.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cellphone Termination Fee Cases
180 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (California Court of Appeal, 2009)
Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Cuomo
592 F. Supp. 2d 684 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Fabiano v. Philip Morris Inc.
54 A.D.3d 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer
447 F. Supp. 2d 230 (S.D. New York, 2004)
State v. Philip Morris Inc.
308 A.D.2d 57 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Estate of Raduazo
814 A.2d 147 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2002)
State v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
18 S.W.3d 186 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 A.D.2d 400, 693 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-philip-morris-inc-nyappdiv-1999.