New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 3396 (2026)

Violations; penalties

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 3396. Violations; penalties.  1. In any civil, criminal or
administrative action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any
provision of this article, it shall not be necessary to negate or
disprove any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in this
article, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso,
or exemption shall be upon the person claiming its benefit.
  2. Violation of any provision of this article for which a penalty is
specifically provided herein shall be punishable as provided herein.
Violation of any provision of this article for which no penalty is
provided herein shall be punishable as provided in section twelve-b of
article one of this chapter or in the penal law.
  3. No person shall be prosecuted for a violation of any provision of
this article if such person has been acquitted or convicted under the
federal controlled substances act, of the same act or omission which, it
is alleged, constitutes a violation of this article.
  4. Upon the conviction of any person for violating any provision of
this article, a copy of the judgment and sentence, and of the opinion of
the court or judge, if any opinion be filed, shall be sent by the clerk
of the court, or by the judge, to the board or officer, if any, by whom
the convicted defendant has been licensed or registered to practice his
profession, or to carry on his business.
  5. Upon the imposition of any penalty, warning, reprimand or other
sanction against any person for violating any provision of this article,
a copy of the order, finding or opinion, if any is made or rendered,
shall be sent by the person authorized by law to make such
determination, to the board or officer by whom the respondent is
licensed or registered to practice a profession or to carry on a
business.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2015 · leading case: People v. Lobianco, 2 Misc. 3d 419 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Lobianco, 2 Misc. 3d 419 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2003). · cites it 7× “Public Health Law § 3396 Does Not Apply to Penal Law Actions The People argue that mere possession is presumed unlawful.”

L.B. v. Town of Chester, 232 F. Supp. 2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “They base this argument on N.Y. Public Health Law § 3396 (1) which provides that "in any civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this article, it shall not be necessary to negate or disprove any exception, excuse,…”

People v. Torres, 47 Misc. 3d 24 (N.Y. App. Term. 2015). · cites it 2× “The People respond that the prescription exemption is a proviso which need not be pleaded in the accusatory instrument but, rather, is a defense to be raised by the accused, and that, even were it an exception, Public Health Law § 3396 (1) places the burden of proof on the…”

Roe v. City of New York, 232 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “Defendants rely on N.Y. Public Health Law § 3396 (1) for their interpretation.”

People v. Martes, 140 Misc. 2d 1034 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1988). “00 [2]; Public Health Law § 3396 [1].) However, there must be some factual allegation to indicate that the defendant “knowingly” possessed cocaine.”

Rakstis v. Axelrod, 126 A.D.2d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “Public Health Law § 3396 (2), on the other hand, provides that a violation of any provision of Public Health Law article 33 for which a penalty is prescribed therein must be punishable as so prescribed.”

People v. Opris, 161 Misc. 2d 415 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “(See, Public Health Law § 3396 [1].) * Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 170.”

People v. Santos, 279 A.D.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “Moreover, that statement was consistent with the presumption that the sale of narcotics is unlawful (see, People v Rodriguez, 58 AD2d 612; People v Strong, 47 AD2d 798 , affd 42 NY2d 868 ), as well as with the defendant’s right to present evidence of any legal authority he might…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.