SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0945-21 

IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL 

OF A PERMIT FOR STANDARD 

WELLNESS, CO., NJ, LLC TO 

OPERATE AN ALTERNATIVE 

TREATMENT CENTER 

PURSUANT TO THE 2019 

REQUEST FOR APPLICATION 

PROCESS. 

______________________________

Argued October 11, 2023 – Decided December 8, 2023 

Before Judges Whipple, Mayer and Enright. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory 

Commission. 

Leo J. Hurley, Jr., argued the cause for appellant 

Standard Wellness, Co., NJ, LLC (Connell Foley LLP,

attorneys; Leo J. Hurley, Jr., and Alexa C. Salcito, on 

the briefs).

Jacqueline R. D'Alessandro, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, 

Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jacqueline R. 

D'Alessandro, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0945-21

 Appellant Standard Wellness, Co., NJ, LLC (Standard) appeals from an 

October 15, 2021 final agency decision issued by respondent New Jersey 

Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) denying its application for a vertically 

integrated permit (VIP)1 to operate an alternative treatment center (ATC) 

pursuant to the 2019 Request for Applications (RFA). Standard's appeal 

challenges the CRC's decision declining to increase the number of VIPs despite 

increasing the number of cultivation and dispensary permits. We affirm. 

 We incorporate the relevant facts from the three back-to-back companion 

cannabis permit cases presented to the panel on October 11, 2023. See I/M/O 

Denial of the Dispensary Permit Endorsement for AP NJ Health, LLC, No. A0783-21 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2023); I/M/O Denial of the Dispensary Permit 

Endorsement for Green Leaf Medical of New Jersey, LLC, No. A-0943-21 (App. 

Div. Dec. 8, 2023); I/M/O Denial of the Dispensary Permit Endorsement for NJ 

Holistic Health, LLC, No. A-1326-21 (App. Div. Dec. 8, 2023).2 In brief, under 

1

 A VIP includes a cultivation endorsement, a manufacturing endorsement, and 

a dispensary endorsement. 

2

 While Rule 1:36-3 generally precludes reference to unpublished opinions, we 

may refer to an unpublished decision for case history or application of 

preclusionary legal principles. See Animal Prot. League of N.J. v. N.J. Dep't of 

Env't Prot., 423 N.J. Super. 549, 556 n.2 (App. Div. 2011) (citing Pressler & 

Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2 on R. 1:36-3 (2011)). 
3 A-0945-21

the RFA, the CRC sought applications for cultivation permits, dispensary 

permits, and VIPs. The CRC stated it would seek up to five cultivation permits, 

fifteen dispensary permits, and four VIPs, including one VIP in each region—

North, Central, and South—and an additional VIP in the region with the greatest 

need. Standard timely filed a complete application for a VIP in the North region 

In our consolidated opinion on the back-to-back cannabis permit cases, 

we described, in detail, the process adopted by the CRC for reviewing permit 

applications to operate ATCs. The CRC assigned scores for each application 

based on specific scoring criteria applied equally to all applicants. Upon 

completion of scoring, the CRC doubled the number of dispensary and 

cultivation permits to be issued. However, the CRC declined to increase the 

number of VIPs because Jake Honig's Law, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1(a), expressly 

limits the number of VIPs to a maximum of four. 

The CRC awarded VIPs to the highest-scoring applicant in each of the 

three regions and the fourth VIP to the highest-scoring applicant not previously 

selected "based on overall score and patient need." Standard was not selected 

to receive a VIP. 

On appeal, unlike the other back-to-back cannabis cases, Standard does 

not challenge its assigned score. Rather, Standard argues the CRC's decision 
4 A-0945-21

not to increase the number of VIPs was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. 

It further asserts the CRC failed to follow rule-making procedures by increasing 

the number of permits allocated for cultivation and dispensary providers,3 but 

not for VIPs. Additionally, Standard contends the CRC failed to provide an 

adequate rationale for declining to increase the number of VIPs despite doubling 

the number of cultivation and dispensary permits. We reject these arguments. 

Our review of an agency decision is limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 

27 (2007). An administrative agency's final quasi-judicial decision "will be 

sustained unless there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., 

Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo v. Bd. of 

Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). 

When reviewing whether an agency decision is arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable, we consider: (1) whether the agency action violated "express or 

implied legislative policies"; (2) whether there was substantial evidence in the 

record to support the agency's decision; and (3) whether in applying the law to 

the facts, the agency reached a conclusion "that could not reasonably have been 

3

 The CRC did not increase the number of dispensary permits until December 

2021, well after it denied Standard's VIP application. 
5 A-0945-21

made on a showing of the relevant factors." Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. 

Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (quoting In re Stallworth, 208 

N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). If the agency satisfies these requirements, we "owe[]

substantial deference to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a 

particular field." Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28. 

We may depart from such deference "when an agency's decision is 

manifestly mistaken." Outland v. Bd. of Trs. of the Teachers' Pension & 

Annuity Fund, 326 N.J. Super. 395, 400 (App. Div. 1999). However, there is a 

"strong inclination" to "defer to agency action that is consistent with the 

legislative grant of power." Lower Main Street Assocs. v. N.J. Hous. & Mortg. 

Fin. Agency, 114 N.J. 226, 236 (1989). This preference "is even stronger when 

the agency has delegated discretion to determine the technical and special 

procedures to accomplish its task." In re Application of Holy Name Hosp. for a 

Certificate of Need, 301 N.J. Super. 282, 295 (App. Div. 1997). Our 

Legislature's delegation of power to an agency is "construed liberally when the 

agency is concerned with the protection of the health and welfare of the public." 

Barone v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 210 N.J. Super. 276, 285 (App. Div. 1986). 

We also defer to an agency's "technical expertise, its superior knowledge 

of its subject matter area, and its fact-finding role." Messick v. Bd. of Rev., 420 
6 A-0945-21

N.J. Super. 321, 325 (App. Div. 2011). Such deference "is only as compelling 

as is the expertise of the agency, and this generally only in technical matters 

which lie within its special competence." In re Application of Boardwalk 

Regency Corp. for a Casino License, 180 N.J. Super. 324, 333 (App. Div. 1981). 

The CRC, as the successor agency to the Department of Health, has the 

discretion to decide "whether the issuance of a permit to a particular applicant 

would be consistent with the purposes of [N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16]," and to 

determine "the kind and amount of information necessary to process permit 

applications." Nat. Med., Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 428 N.J. 

Super. 259, 263 (App. Div. 2012). Applying the governing case law, we are 

satisfied neither the CRC's decision declining to increase the number of VIPs 

nor its denial of Standard's VIP application was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable. 

An administrative agency should "articulate the standards and principles 

that govern [its] discretionary decisions in as much detail as possible." Van 

Holten Grp. v. Elizabethtown Water Co., 121 N.J. 48, 67 (1990) (quoting Crema 

v. N.J. Dept. of Env't Prot., 94 N.J. 286, 301 (1983)). An agency must make 

findings "to the extent required by statute or regulation, and provide notice of 

those [findings] to all interested parties." In re Issuance of a Permit by Dep't of 
7 A-0945-21

Env't Prot. to Ciba-Geigy Corp., 120 N.J. 164, 173 (1990). However, "[a]ll of 

the evidential data" submitted to an agency "need not be repeated or even 

summarized, nor need every contention be exhaustively treated." In re 

Application of Howard Sav. Inst. of Newark, 32 N.J. 29, 53 (1960). A decision 

"is sufficient if it can be determined from the document without question or 

doubt what facts and factors led to the ultimate conclusions reached." Ibid. 

Even where an agency's findings are not as "full and well organized" as they 

could be, if we are able to understand the meaning of, and the reasons for, the 

decision, there is no reason for a remand. Ibid. 

In accordance with its legislative mandate, the CRC updated projections 

from its 2017/2018 Biennial Report4 to ensure patients had sufficient access to 

medicinal cannabis statewide. The update was prompted by the following 

factors: "the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the stays imposed by the 

Appellate Division on the RFA review process . . . [and] the delays in resolving 

the appeals for which the stays were issued." As part of its update, the CRC 

calculated the total canopy space required to meet patient needs in the 

marketplace in 2021 and concluded 

[d]oubling the number of cultivators . . . [was] 

consistent with the statutory charge and authority of the 

4

 This report was issued on April 1, 2019 and covered the years 2017 and 2018. 
8 A-0945-21

[CRC] to meet patient need, reflective of expansion of 

the patient population over the last two years, the

projected expansion in the future, and the anticipated 

loss of capacity due to medicinal cannabis businesses

redirecting resources to the launch of Personal-Use

cannabis sales in the future. 

Because it had the statutory authority to determine the number of permits 

to be issued and "[t]o keep pace with expanding patient enrollment," the CRC 

decided doubling the number of cultivation permits would address the gap 

between patient enrollment and access to medicinal cannabis. Further, the CRC 

concluded an increase in the number of cultivation permits would increase the 

square footage of growing canopy in the market "to provide the patient 

population with access to diverse products at affordable prices." Further, by 

doubling the number of permits for cultivators, the CRC noted additional 

competition would correspondingly provide patients with the ability to find the 

medicinal cannabis products they desired at a price they could afford. 

The CRC declined to increase the number of VIPs because Jake Honig's 

Law expressly limits the number of VIPs to a maximum of four. The law 

provides: 

[U]p to four [ATC] permits issued by the commission

after [July 2, 2019] . . . pursuant to a[n RFA] published 

in the New Jersey Register prior to [July 2, 2019] shall 

be deemed to concurrently hold a medical cannabis 

cultivator permit, a medical cannabis manufacturer 
9 A-0945-21

permit, and a medical cannabis dispensary permit; of 

these permits, one permit shall be issued to an applicant 

located in the northern region of the State, one permit 

shall be issued to an applicant located in the central 

region of the State, and one permit shall be issued to an 

applicant located in the southern region of the State. 

[N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1(a).]5

Although the CRC's rationale for declining to increase the number of VIPs 

might not have been as fulsome as Standard desired, we are satisfied there was 

sufficient evidence in the record to support the CRC's determination. 

Additionally, because the CRC's decision was consistent with its legislative 

mandate, it is entitled to deference. Thus, we are satisfied the CRC's declining 

to increase the number of VIPs, resulting in the denial of Standard's VIP 

application, was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 

We next consider Standard's argument that the CRC failed to follow 

proper rule-making procedures when it increased the number of cultivation and 

dispensary permits. We reject this argument. 

Because the CRC has the statutory authority to address the number of 

permits required to meet patients' needs for medicinal cannabis, the rule-making 

5

 N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1(a) explicitly states that it applies to permits issued after 

July 2, 2019 under an RFA issued prior to July 2, 2019. Therefore, the statute 

unequivocally limited the number of VIPs that could be issued in this case to a 

maximum of four. 
10 A-0945-21

requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act, N.J.S.A. 52-14B-5, are 

inapplicable. See Dragon v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 405 N.J. Super. 478, 493 

(App. Div. 2009) (noting "it is the court's function to interpret an agency's 

enabling statute to determine whether the agency's actions are consistent with 

the policy established by the Legislature or exceed the scope of the agency's 

jurisdiction."). Additionally, the CRC explained why it increased the number 

of cultivation permits but not VIPs. That Standard disagrees with the CRC's 

reasoning does not allow this court to alter a discretionary decision expressly 

delegated to the agency by the Legislature. 

The number of VIPs to be issued under the 2019 RFA was limited to one 

in each region—North, Central, and South—and an additional VIP in the region 

with the greatest need for a total of four VIPs. The statute expressly limited the 

number of VIPs to be issued by the CRC to four. If Standard believes that 

number is insufficient to provide statewide access to individuals requiring 

medicinal cannabis, it should direct a request for additional VIPs to the 

Legislature. 

To the extent we have not addressed any of Standard's remaining 

arguments, those arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion 

in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 
11 A-0945-21

 Affirmed.