‘Unconstitutional’: Class Action Challenges New York’s 50-Person Cap on Weddings Amid COVID-19 Crisis

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Two restaurant and event space operators allege executive orders codifying New York’s 50-person cap on weddings amid the COVID-19 pandemic were issued in an unconstitutionally “arbitrary and capricious manner,” in particular given greater numbers of people are allowed to gather in similar settings.

Filed against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, State Attorney General Letitia James, New York Liquor Authority Commissioner Greeley T. Ford and the New York State Liquor Authority, the 23-page case alleges the defendants have “exploited the COVID-19 pandemic” by issuing and enforcing executive orders in a “haphazard and dictatorial fashion” while carving out exemptions “according to their own political preferences and value judgments.”

The plaintiffs claim the defendants have violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting them from hosting weddings in excess of 50 people while simultaneously allowing the companies to provide restaurant services “under the same circumstances and at the same location” to the general public at 50 percent of their maximum capacity—which, in both restaurants’ cases, is more than 50 people, per the suit.

“There is no material difference between hosting weddings or the general public for restaurant service,” the complaint avers.

Detailed in the lawsuit is the timeline of Governor Cuomo’s executive orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the “ever-evolving official application” of which, the plaintiffs say, has specifically limited “non-essential gatherings” to fewer than 50 people. Amid Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-related restrictions, restaurants and food service establishments can face fines of as much as $10,000 per violation, as well as potential liquor license suspension or revocation, the suit says.

Per one executive order, gatherings in New York can only be held “in a region that has reached Phase 4 of the State’s reopening,” and must adhere to “social distancing, face covering, and cleaning and disinfection protocols required by the Department of Health,” according to the case.

Though the mandate appears to limit all gatherings of more than 50 people, the plaintiffs allege the defendants have “riddled this executive order with a panoply of far-reaching exceptions,” including by allowing “thousands upon thousands” of restaurants to serve patrons at up to 50 percent of their regular occupancy limit.

Although the plaintiffs and similarly situated establishments are allowed to offer dining services to more than 50 members of the general public if their regular occupancy limit allows for such, the 50-person cap on weddings is strictly enforced, the suit argues.

According to the case, although one plaintiff is able to provide restaurant service for 176 people at one sitting under the defendants’ rules, the establishment is nevertheless prohibited from hosting a wedding dinner in excess of 50 people “under the same rules.” The other plaintiff is permitted to host up to 200 people in its ballroom and 88 people in its tavern under the defendants’ orders, but not a wedding for more than 50 guests, the suit adds.

The case alleges the defendants’ executive orders violate proposed class members’ Constitutional right to equal protection given they discriminate against venues that serve wedding guests in the same context and under the same guidelines as regular dining services. From the complaint:

The lawsuit goes on to allege the cap on weddings is still enforced even though the defendants have allowed additional exceptions to the 50-person limit for graduation ceremonies, bowling alleys, museums, and gyms. Further, the plaintiffs say the defendants “regularly permit and encourage closely packed gatherings of hundreds of thousands of people” to protest the wrongful death of George Floyd “across every major city in the State of New York” and in many smaller villages and towns.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants’ limitations on weddings have caused economic hardship that’s been a “major disruption” and existential threat to their businesses.

The restaurants look to represent the following proposed class:

ClassAction.org’s coverage of COVID-19 litigation can be found here and over on our Newswire.

Sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.