ALBANY — Lawyers for New York City argued before the state’s highest Court Wednesday that the Board of Health has sweeping powers allowing it to restrict the size of sugary drinks — leading a judge to question if it might also get around to outlawing Big Macs and M&M’s.
In a closely watched case with national implications, city lawyers sought to overturn lower-court rulings that the health panel had exceeded its authority in 2012 when it limited the size of sweetened beverages in restaurants to 16 ounces.
The case was considered so important that former Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, who was in charge when the restriction was enacted under ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg, traveled to Albany to lobby on behalf of the new administration.
“It is not necessary for the City Council to act on this,” he told reporters. “The Board of Health has the authority in the City Charter.”
Lawyers for a coalition that includes the beverage and grocery industries — who stymied Bloomberg and are now out to block Mayor de Blasio from imposing the new regulations — continued to push the opposite argument.
“The City Charter says that the City Council is the legislative body, that the legislative power belongs to them,” insisted attorney Richard Bress.
Judges on the Court of Appeals took turns probing the arguments of each side.
At one point during the 45-minute hearing, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. asked the city lawyer Richard Dearing if the health board’s powers had any limitations, wondering if Big Macs and M&M’s might be the next targets.
“It seems like in your brief and in the record that you are arguing there is a separate legislature in the city of New York and it is not the elected one,” Pigott said.
“[You’re saying] we’re smart and we get to decide all of this,” Pigott continued, “and the City Council has nothing to say about it, the mayor has nothing to say about it and if we want to decide that M&M’s are bad for you and the store has to close down in Times Square, we can do it.”
Dearing, the city lawyer, responded that the health board would only act in those instances if there was scientific evidence showing significant health risks.
On the flip side, Pigott questioned opponents: “What’s the big deal about saying, ‘If you’re going to buy it, you’ve got to buy it in a smaller cup?’ ”
A ruling by the court is expected within 30 to 90 days.