Met Museum's Admission Fee Is Lawful, Says Judge

On Wednesday, a New York state judge ruled that the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s (MMA) admission fee of a “suggested donation” is lawful dismissing claims that it violates the museum’s Central Park lease or a 19^th century state law, as patrons alleged.

A large portion of the museum’s operating fund would be cut.

Plaintiffs, who filed the class action and injunctive suit against the museum in November, accused the MMA of deceiving museum visitors by suggesting a $25 donation per person per visit, as well as breaking a law passed in 1893 that established free rent for the museum and supplemental operating funds in exchange for free admission for the public.

The goal of the 1893 law was to promote education and enlightenment for New Yorkers, according to the judge. If the museum was prohibited from charging admission, then that goal would be compromised, since a large portion of the museum’s operating fund would be cut, she said.

Patrons would lose access to the museum if the MMA didn’t implement an admission policy to aid budget constraints in 1970, the judge determined. Under the MMA’s lease with the city, the museum is allowed to operate rent-free as long as exhibit halls remain free to the public on certain days. The judge warned that the suit could potentially cause the museum to start charging for these exhibits or threaten the free access it already offers on certain days. The city has always been aware of the admission policy and has never objected to it before, the judge added.

Attorneys for the defendants have previously critiqued the plaintiffs who filed the class action suit against the museum, since they are citizens of the Czech Republic. They argued that it would not make sense for nonresidents to upend a policy that could potentially cause New Yorkers’ taxes to go up.

Plaintiffs’ claims that the museum’s admission policy violates state consumer protection law and that the museum failed to comply with environmental regulations when a new entrance was constructed were not ruled on during Wednesday’s court date.