Connect with us

Government

Hire A New York Cannabis Attorney

Published

on

If you are applying for an adult-use cannabis license in New York, please please please hire a New York cannabis attorney.

It doesn’t have to be be us, but it should be someone who is actually familiar with the licensing rules and regulations beyond just reading media headlines. We’ve written about it before (herehere and here). Unfortunately, we’ll likely write about it again. Picking the wrong attorney and following inaccurate advice can lead to the loss of time, money and the opportunity to obtain a license in New York’s cannabis industry (or any other state’s cannabis industry for that matter).

Licensing rules and regulations are dense. There are technicalities that make the difference between a license working for a potential applicant and being waste of time and money. The particular rule that makes a difference for an applicant may not be on the first page or the second page of a set of rules and regulations, or even something that’s referenced in official statements. That’s why really, really knowing each specific set of rules and regulations, and having a strong feel for administrative policies and behaviors, is critical to submitting a successful application.

The most recent trigger for our soapbox: the location options for New York’s Conditional Adult-Use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) license. For the last few weeks, we have received too many calls from prospective applicants, many of whom have already identified real estate for a non-conditional retail dispensary license, asking to submit a CAURD application. When asked about the CAURD’s apparent mandate that licensees accept a state-selected dispensary location, we are told that the prospective applicant has “heard” or “read”–or even “been advised”–that CAURD applicants can select their own dispensary locations.

We are confident that CAURD applicants cannot select their own dispensary locations, and any definitive guidance that they can is questionable, at best. Section 116.7(b)(6) of the CAURD regulations makes it a condition of licensure that the licensee “[accept] a dispensary location identified by the fund or office[.]”

The Office of Cannabis Management also published a very useful FAQ that all prospective applicants should read (and which we will write about), which provided as follows (emphasis added):

31. Can I choose where my CAURD licensed retail dispensary will be located?

Applicants who are selected will be assigned a retail dispensary location in one of the fourteen (14) geographic regions of NYS. When applying you will be asked to indicate which region(s) of the State you would prefer to be assigned a license in. You will be able to rank your top five (5) preferred regions. You will not be able to choose the specific street address or neighborhood for this dispensary. Provisional licensees will be able to share their preferences among the available locations in the region for which they have been selected.

If you would like to select your own site for a retail dispensary, the CAURD license may not be the right fit for you. Future adult-use retail dispensary licenses (and those for on-site consumption sites) will have more flexibility in allowing licensees to choose their own location.”

Which is not to say there is 100% certainty, because the OCM also published comments and responses for the CAURD regulations, and included this contradictory tidbit (emphasis added):

“COMMENT: Commenters requested clarification from the Office on the nature of agreements which applicants would be required to enter into as described in section 116.7(c)(6) of the proposed rules. Commenters requested clarification on what support would be offered by the New York Social Equity Cannabis Investment Fund and the specifics of that support, such as disbursement schedule, repayment rate, acceptable expenses, and tax repercussions of accepting support. Commenters noted that “financing with favorable terms” is difficult for cannabis businesses to secure and expressed a desire to obtain support from the Fund for costs beyond build-out of the dispensary. Commenters stated it was unclear what level of control the state would have over their business as a result of accepting this support. Commenters were concerned that the terms of agreements with the Fund would be unfavorable and that licensees would be trapped in predatory arrangements. Commenters expressed a desire to apply for licensure without receiving location assistance from the Fund. Commenters suggested that, before approving any agreements between licensees and the fund, the Board consult with the Chief Equity Officer and Cannabis Advisory Board to ensure the terms and conditions of the agreements promote equity.

RESPONSE: The proposed rules only require licensees to enter into agreements which have been approved by the Board and been made available by the Office. The proposed regulations do not insist upon applicants to use New York Social Equity Cannabis Investment Fund locations and provide for the allowance of an applicant to provide their own location that complies with the proposed regulations. The Office is working with the Fund to ensure that the location assignments are a benefit to all applicants to ensure their success. No changes have been made to the proposed regulations as a result of this comment.”

We expect to get some clarity from the OCM regarding the contradictory guidance, and will update this post as soon as we do. With that said, the disconnect between media reports (which do not and should not get into the gritty details of licensure) and the actual application process should not be a problem because prospective applicants should get legal advice on the actual rules and regulations before deciding to apply. That there is still so much misinformation given the prevalence of New York “cannabis” attorneys is disconcerting.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: if you are planning on applying for a cannabis license, you don’t have to hire us, but you should hire a local, New York cannabis attorney who has more than passing knowledge of the applicable rules and regulations.

Source: https://harrisbricken.com/cannalawblog/hire-a-new-york-cannabis-attorney/

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Corruption

Four Ganga Land Leases Cancelled in Sambhal After Record Irregularities

Published

on

By

The Sambhal district administration has cancelled four government land leases issued more than three decades ago after an official investigation found alleged irregularities in the classification and allotment of Ganga river land.

The action follows an inquiry that concluded approximately 31 bigha of land in Surpur village of Gunnour tehsil was leased after its original revenue classification was allegedly altered, allowing land categorized as riverbed to be treated as agricultural property.

Inquiry Reveals Alleged Record Manipulation

The decision was taken by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) based on an investigation conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Gunnour.

Officials found that while the current revenue records listed the land as transferable agricultural property, older consolidation documents identified it as Category-6(1) submerged river land, making it ineligible for such allotments.

Following the findings, the administration ordered the cancellation of all four leases and directed revenue officials to restore the land’s original classification in official records.

Leases Issued in 1991 Declared Invalid

According to the inquiry, the disputed leases were granted on November 17, 1991, in the names of Shrinivas, Sher Singh, Shakuntala, residents of Surpur village, and Prakash Chandra of Patei Kayasth village.

Authorities stated that the allotments did not comply with the provisions of Section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, prompting their cancellation.

Officials said corrective entries are now being made in the revenue records to reflect the land’s original legal status.

Wider Probe Into Ganga Riverbank Land Allotments

The latest action is part of a broader investigation into alleged irregularities involving government land located along the Ganga riverbank in Sambhal district.

Earlier investigations uncovered suspected illegal allotments involving nearly 845 bigha of government land in Sukhailla village under Gram Panchayat Asadpur, where 162 leases are also under scrutiny.

Investigators believe a similar pattern may have been followed in multiple cases, with riverbed land allegedly reclassified as agricultural land before being leased to individuals.

Field inspections reportedly found that much of the land was unsuitable for conventional farming and was instead being used for activities such as sand mining.

Government Land Worth ₹18 Crore Under Review

District officials estimate that approximately 850 bigha (around 71.5 hectares) of government land, valued at nearly ₹18 crore, is currently under investigation.

Authorities have launched a comprehensive review of historical land leases issued across villages situated along the Ganga river in the Rajpura, Gunnour, and Junawai blocks.

The objective is to determine which allotments were made legally and identify cases where land records may have been manipulated.

Officials’ Role Also Being Examined

The investigation has also raised questions about the possible involvement or negligence of officials from the revenue and consolidation departments.

District authorities said responsibility will be fixed after the inquiry is completed, and legal or departmental action will be taken against anyone found to have violated land allotment rules.

Officials indicated that the ongoing review could reveal additional cases involving unauthorized occupation or irregular leasing of government land.

The administration has reiterated its commitment to restoring government property and ensuring transparency in land management across the district.

Continue Reading

Education & Training

NTA Warns NEET UG 2026 Candidates Against Fake OMR Sheets

Published

on

By

The National Testing Agency (NTA) has issued a warning to NEET UG 2026 candidates and their parents against submitting fake, altered, or AI-generated OMR sheets while raising objections related to examination results.

The examination authority said that candidates found providing fabricated documents or misleading information during the verification process could face legal consequences.

The warning comes after several students approached the agency with complaints alleging discrepancies between their expected scores and the marks published in the final results.

NTA Finds Suspicious Documents During Verification

According to the NTA, some candidates submitted OMR sheets while requesting score verification, but officials found that certain documents appeared to be manipulated or artificially generated.

The agency clarified that only original OMR sheets issued during the examination process will be accepted for reviewing complaints.

NTA officials said they are examining all grievances carefully and will consider only verified examination records while deciding on score-related concerns.

Students Raise Questions Over NEET UG Results

After the announcement of NEET UG 2026 results, several candidates reported differences between their estimated marks based on the official answer key and their final scorecards.

Some students claimed that their expected scores were significantly higher than the marks awarded in the results.

In some reported cases, candidates alleged that uploaded OMR sheets did not match their original answer sheets or that the displayed scores were inconsistent with their calculations.

The complaints prompted several students and parents to seek clarification and request a detailed review of the evaluation process.

AI-Generated Fake Records Create New Challenge

The NTA has highlighted the growing misuse of artificial intelligence tools to create fake examination documents.

Officials said digitally altered OMR sheets and fabricated records could create difficulties in identifying genuine grievances and may affect the integrity of the complaint resolution system.

The agency advised candidates to avoid using unofficial documents or modified materials while submitting objections.

Candidates found involved in producing false evidence may face action under applicable laws, the NTA warned.

NEET UG 2026 Conducted Again After Paper Leak Allegations

The NEET UG 2026 examination process faced controversy after allegations of a paper leak led authorities to cancel the original exam held on May 3.

A re-examination was conducted on June 21 for affected candidates, following which results were announced on July 16.

After the controversy, the government announced plans to move future NEET UG examinations from the traditional pen-and-paper format to a computer-based testing (CBT) system.

Verification Process Continues

The NTA said the review of complaints submitted by candidates is still underway and further decisions will be taken after completing the verification of all documents.

The agency has urged students to rely only on official communication channels and submit genuine records while seeking clarification about their results.

Continue Reading

Corruption & Governance

Goa PWD Tenders Worth ₹1,000 Crore Come Under Government Probe

Published

on

By

The Goa government has initiated a detailed investigation into alleged irregularities in Public Works Department (PWD) tenders worth nearly ₹1,000 crore, following complaints of document manipulation and misuse of contractor eligibility credentials.

The probe focuses on claims that certain construction firms may have secured high-value infrastructure contracts by submitting falsified or altered work completion certificates to qualify for top contractor categories.

Allegations of Fake Experience Certificates in Tender Bids

According to complaints filed by engineers and contractors, several companies allegedly used questionable documentation to obtain Class IAA contractor status, a designation that allows participation in large-scale government infrastructure projects.

Investigators are examining whether manipulated work completion certificates were used to falsely demonstrate prior project experience, thereby inflating eligibility during the tender evaluation process.

One of the key concerns involves references to infrastructure projects executed under Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, including the “Mudi Tank Filling Scheme.” Authorities are verifying claims that duplicate or inconsistent completion certificates may have been issued for the same project.

JV Structure Alteration Under Scrutiny

Officials are also investigating alleged changes in joint venture (JV) agreements submitted during tender applications. In one case under review, a 2019 JV reportedly listed Amrita Constructions Private Limited as the lead partner, with another firm as a supporting entity.

However, documents submitted to Goa PWD allegedly reversed these roles, naming Bagkiya Constructions as the lead partner. This change is suspected to have significantly enhanced the company’s technical eligibility and past performance record.

Authorities believe such alterations may have allowed firms to qualify for contracts they would otherwise not have been eligible for under standard procurement norms.

Allegations Linked to Karnataka Project Documentation

Another complaint under review concerns the “Akka Mahadevi Memorial Project” in Shivamogga, Karnataka, valued at over ₹51 crore. It is alleged that the project, executed in phases, was incorrectly represented as a single completed contract to meet eligibility requirements for higher-value tenders.

Investigators are verifying whether such representations were used to gain unfair advantage in experience-based qualification criteria.

Government Launches Comprehensive Inquiry

Following the emergence of these allegations, the Goa government has ordered a preliminary inquiry into all related contracts, approvals, and supporting documentation.

Officials have stated that every stage of the tendering process—including eligibility checks, certificate validation, and contract award decisions—will be examined in detail.

If irregularities are established, possible actions may include contract cancellation, blacklisting of firms, recovery of funds, and legal proceedings against those involved in submitting false documentation.

Concerns Over Procurement Transparency

The case has raised broader concerns about transparency and verification systems in public infrastructure procurement. Experts point out that reliance on manual documentation without robust digital verification increases the risk of fraud in large-scale government contracting.

Transparency advocates have called for stronger auditing systems, centralized contractor databases, and real-time verification of project credentials to prevent misuse of public tender processes.

Probe Continues

Authorities have confirmed that the investigation is ongoing and a detailed report will be prepared after reviewing all evidence and documentation. Further action will be taken based on the findings in accordance with applicable laws and procurement rules.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 420 Reports Marijuana News & Information Website | Reefer News | Cannabis News