A New York woman sued tobacco companies because they sold regular cigarettes when they could have sold only 'light' brands with less tar and nicotine, but this week the New York State Court of Appeals rejected the claim, Newsday reported Dec. 16.

The justices said plaintiffs' lawyers failed to prove that light cigarettes were as satisfying to a smoker as regulars, which the suit claimed made higher tar and nicotine cigarettes unnecessary.

The plaintiff, Norma Rose, smoked regular cigarettes for over 40 years. She was diagnosed with lung cancer and neurological damage in 1995, two years after she quit smoking, and sued. She died during the latest appeal of her case; earlier, lower courts had awarded Rose and her husband a total of $3.42 million in compensatory damages and $17.1 million in punitive damages.

"The only 'utility' of a cigarette is to gratify smokers' desires for a certain experience, and plaintiffs did not prove, or try to prove, that light cigarettes perform this function as well as regular cigarettes," wrote Judge Robert Smith in the 6-1 decision. "A strong argument can be made that, when the pleasure they give smokers is balanced against the harm they do, regular cigarettes are worse than useless. But it is still lawful for people to buy and smoke regular cigarettes, and for cigarette companies to sell them."