A state law that allowed New York City to padlock hundreds of suspected illegal cannabis stores is unconstitutional, a Queens judge ruled Tuesday in an explosive ruling.

Judge Kevin J. Kerrigan ruled that the warrant, which grants the city sheriff’s office the power to keep illicit cannabis sellers closed after a search, violates the store owners’ rights to due process.

The decision-making power of the sheriff, which leaves store owners powerless, regardless of the evidence and the decisions of the administrative courts… as reviewed in a recent Post expose — “opposes the cornerstone of American democracy and due process,” Kerrigan wrote.

The city has used this provision to support its enforcement efforts – Mayor Eric Adams boasted “Operation Padlock To Protect”, which officials say led to the closure of more than 900 stores.

Store owners can appeal their closure to administrative courts, but under the law the sheriff has the final say in determining which raided stores can remain open and which must remain closed for up to a year.

“To summarily close a business for one year. Although he was exonerated of allegations of illegal activities, this goes against the cornerstone of American democracy and due process,” the decision states.

Adams administration spokeswoman Liz Garcia said the city was reviewing the decision and filed an appeal Tuesday afternoon.

“This decision validates what we have been defending since the promulgation of this law. Mayor Adams, the City Council and the Sheriff violated the due process rights of every store owner who was shut down by the New York Sheriff’s Office,” said attorney Lance Lazzaro.

Lazzaro, who represents Cloud Corner, a Queens store closed last month following allegations of selling weed without a license, predicted that the ruling — which calls for the reopening of his client’s store — could allow d other people targeted in Operation Padlock to sue for “astronomical damages”. »

“New York City should be ashamed of itself for allowing this process to happen in the first place,” Lazarro said.

“How would Mayor Adams feel if his due process rights were violated in his ongoing criminal case?

The Post reported Sunday that in about 30 percent of cases, the sheriff’s office made a final decision overturning recommendations from the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that the accused stores be allowed to reopen.

A number of these stores were found not to even contain cannabis, while others were ordered to reopen because sheriff’s deputies had either poorly conducted their inspections or failed to properly respond to summonses , according to hundreds of pages of OATH. audiences reviewed by The Post.

The store at the heart of Kerrigan’s decision, Cloud Corner – incorporated as ASA 456 Corp. – admitted containing cannabis, but successfully argued at his sworn hearing, and now in the Queen’s Supreme Court, that the sheriff’s raid took place out of office hours. and therefore, the inspection could not have concluded that pot was being offered for sale.

OATH rejected both the summons and the order to close the store, but the sheriff issued a final ruling that the store should be closed for up to a year, citing its hours of operation listed on Google Maps and claiming to have discovered dozens of pounds of illicit cannabis products. .

The store owner said the information was automatically generated and was not accurate to the store’s actual operating hours, and Judge Kerrigan acknowledged that the sheriff failed to determine that the store was actively selling cannabis.

The sheriff’s order to keep the store closed “can only be described as arbitrary and capricious,” the judge wrote.

“If the final arbiter has the authority to confer no weight on the hearing, there is no real opportunity to be heard,” the decision reads, “which significantly increases the risk of wrongful deprivation and raises a problem of due process.”

Last summer, the same Queens judge ruled in favor of another case brought by Lazzaro, arguing that a sealing order should be dismissed if OATH rejects the underlying summons in connection with a cannabis search.

This case is also the subject of an appeal by the city’s legal department.

Tuesday’s ruling contradicts an initial ruling by a federal judge in a class-action lawsuit filed by Lazzaro, in which the judge said there were sufficient due process and the risk of “wrongful deprivation” was low.