White v. Cuomo - 2020 NY Slip Op 00895, 181 A.D.3d 76, 118 N.Y.S.3d 775 (App. Div. 3rd Dept.)

Rule:

Legislative enactments enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and parties challenging a duly enacted statute face the initial burden of demonstrating the statute's invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. A basic tenet of constitutional and statutory interpretation is that the clearest and most compelling indicator of the drafters' intent is the language itself. Resort must be had to the natural signification of the words employed, and if they have a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity or contradiction, there is no room for construction, and courts have no right to add to or take away from that meaning. 

Facts:

In August 2016, the Legislature amended the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law by adding an article related to the registration and regulation of interactive fantasy sports (hereinafter IFS) contests (see Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law art 14, as added by L 2016, ch 237). Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law article 14 declares that IFS contests do not constitute gambling and provides for consumer safeguards, minimum standards and the registration, regulation and taxation of IFS providers. Plaintiffs — several state taxpayers who are or have been affected by the negative impacts of gambling — commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment that article 14 violates NY Constitution, article I, § 9 and seeking to enjoin defendants from implementing the statutes. After joinder of issue, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their complaint. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for a declaration that article 14 does not violate the NY Constitution. Supreme Court partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, holding that article 14, to the extent that it authorizes and regulates IFS, was void as in violation of NY Constitution, article I, § 9. The court also partially granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, holding that article 14, to the extent that it excludes IFS from the scope of the definition of "gambling" in Penal Law article 225, was not in violation of NY Constitution, article I, § 9. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed.

Issue:

Did Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law art. 14 violate N.Y. Const. art. I, § 9?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law art. 14, to the extent that it authorizes interactive fantasy sports (IFS) contests, permits gambling in violation of N.Y. Const. art. I, § 9. Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1412 was consistent with the constitutional prohibition on gambling inasmuch as the statute prohibited IFS contests. The Legislature, if it had envisioned the possibility that courts would invalidate the majority of art. 14, would not have wished to preserve the decriminalization of IFS located in Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1400(2); thus, severance of that provision was improper, and it was invalidated.