Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

About this case

Filing year
2025
Status
Opening brief filed by HARDI and Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute.
Docket number
CV-26-0498
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsNew York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (N.Y. App. Div.)
Case category
State Law Claims (US)Industry Lawsuits (US)
Principal law
United StatesAmerican Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM Act)United StatesState Law—Miscellaneous StatutesNew York Climate Leadership and Community Protection ActNew York State Administrative Procedure Act
At issue
Industry challenge to amendments to New York's hydrofluorocarbon regulations.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
05/07/2026
Motion for preliminary injunction pending appeal granted.
In a one-page decision and order, the New York Appellate Division granted Heating Air-Conditioning Refrigeration Distributors International’s (HARDI’s) motion for a preliminary injunction pending their appeal of a New York Supreme Court decision rejecting HARDI’s challenge to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations addressing hydrofluorocarbons. HARDI requested that NYSDEC be enjoined from enforcing the regulations’ prohibition on sale or purchase of bulk refrigerants as applied to R-404A and R-507A. NYSDEC had previously granted temporary enforcement discretion with respect to the two refrigerants. HARDI argued it was likely to succeed on the merits in its appeal because industry’s inability to comply with the prohibition was “abundantly clear” and the Supreme Court had erred in relying on NYSDEC’s “ad hoc and discretionary ability to provide relief for infeasibility.” HARDI also argument that New York businesses such as its members would suffer substantial harms. HARDI also argued that the balance of equities weighed in its favor because enforcement of the prohibition on the two refrigerants would have “disastrous consequences” for suppliers, customers, and consumers, while NYSDEC would suffer “little harm” from maintenance of the status quo since the injunction was limited to two refrigerants, NYSDEC had previously exercised its enforcement discretion, and New York State was currently considering rolling back its greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. NYSDEC opposed the preliminary injunction, as did Natural Resources Defense Council, which intervened to defend the regulations. The Appellate Division granted the motion without prejudice to a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction if the appeal was no perfected on or before June 8.
Decision
04/17/2026
Opposition filed by intervenor-respondent NRDC to order to show cause for a preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Opposition
03/26/2026
Letter filed requesting opportunity to provide a reply in support of order to show cause.
Letter
03/26/2026
Letter filed by Office of the New York State Attorney General opposing order to show cause.
Letter

Summary

Industry challenge to amendments to New York's hydrofluorocarbon regulations.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance