Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2020

Elmsford Apartment Associates, LLC v. Cuomo

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-04062
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
First AmendmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Elmsford Apartment Associates v. Cuomo, Judge McMahon allowed simultaneous briefs on plaintiffs’ First Amendment Petition Clause claim.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendant were required or permitted to address the plaintiffs’ First Amendment Petition Clause claim in concurrent letter briefs.

What happened

In Elmsford Apartment Associates, LLC v. Cuomo, the plaintiffs raised a claim that court closures connected to the challenged executive order violated their First Amendment right to petition the government.

The claim was raised during oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, held by telephone on June 24, 2020. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or decide whether the closures violated the Constitution.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the parties to file simultaneous letter briefs addressing the plaintiffs’ Petition Clause claim. Each brief could not exceed three pages and was due by June 26, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Elmsford Apartment Associates, LLC v. Cuomo · No. 1:20-cv-04062
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
June 24, 2020

Background During telephone oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs asserted that court closures related to the challenged executive order violated their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The opinion cites authority concerning the First Amendment Petition Clause.

Order The court permitted the parties to submit concurrent letter briefs addressing the plaintiffs’ Petition Clause claim. The briefs could not exceed three pages and had to be filed by June 26, 2020.

Disposition and significance Judge Colleen McMahon did not decide the merits of the Petition Clause claim in this order. The order addressed only further briefing on that claim, so this is a procedural order rather than a ruling on the underlying constitutional question.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.