d/b/a Seaport House v. Cuomo
- Paul Crotty
- 1:20-cv-10932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hopkins Hawley v. Cuomo, Judge Crotty denied restaurants’ temporary restraining-order request against New York City’s indoor-dining ban.
The plaintiffs, including Hopkins Hawley LLC d/b/a Seaport House, the Greater New York Merchants’ Alliance, and Costin Tarsoaga, did not obtain emergency relief blocking the indoor-dining restriction. The challenged policy remained in place while the preliminary-injunction request proceeded.
What happened
Hopkins Hawley LLC d/b/a Seaport House, the Greater New York Merchants’ Alliance, and Costin Tarsoaga asked the court to temporarily block Governor Andrew Cuomo’s COVID-19 restrictions on indoor restaurant dining in New York City. The court considered the request at a January 6, 2021 telephone conference.
The court denied the request because the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for emergency relief. It found that their delay in seeking the order undermined their claim of immediate, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored allowing the policy to remain in place because it was intended to protect the public from COVID-19.
In Hopkins Hawley v. Cuomo, Judge Paul A. Crotty emphasized that the denial concerned only the temporary restraining order and expressed no view on the pending preliminary-injunction motion. The defendants were ordered to respond by January 13, the plaintiffs to reply by January 19, and a virtual hearing was set for January 21.
The detailed version
- d/b/a Seaport House v. Cuomo · No. 1:20-cv-10932
- Paul Crotty
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order, or TRO, and a preliminary injunction barring Governor Andrew Cuomo’s latest COVID-19 restrictions on restaurant dining in New York City. The defendants named in the case were Andrew Cuomo, the New York City Department of Finance, the New York City Sheriff’s Department, and Bill de Blasio.
The court held a telephone conference on January 6, 2021. The challenged directive banning indoor dining in New York City had been announced on December 11, 2020, while the plaintiffs filed their TRO request on December 30, 2020.
Court’s analysis
Because the requested injunction would affect government action taken in the public interest under a statute or regulatory scheme, the court applied a three-factor test: irreparable harm without relief, a likelihood of success on the merits, and a public interest favoring the injunction.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the test, specifically identifying the irreparable-harm and public-interest factors. The court reasoned that the nearly three-week delay between the announcement of the indoor-dining ban and the TRO request undermined the claim that the alleged harm was immediate and irreparable. The court also found that the public-interest factor favored denying emergency relief. It described the restaurant policy as a preventive measure intended to protect New York City residents from COVID-19 and stated that the policy would be presumed valid until a more complete record indicated otherwise.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Crotty denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order. The order did not decide the merits of the pending preliminary-injunction application. The state and city entities were directed to respond to that application by January 13, 2021; the plaintiffs were directed to reply by January 19, 2021; and the court scheduled a virtual hearing for January 21, 2021, at 12:30 p.m.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.