ALBANY, N.Y. (Legal Newsline) – A federal judge has held that New York was within its authority to shut down the axe-throwing part of an Albany restaurant, pursuant to COVID-19 rules.
But recent guidance from Gov. Andrew Cuomo has allowed the Yard Hatchet House & Bar to allow axe-throwing, though Albany federal judge Mae D’Agostino wrote that didn’t moot the lawsuit filed against him and State Liquor Authority officials.
She denied a preliminary injunction on March 18, about a month after refusing to grant a temporary restraining order.
Yard Hatchet spent 18 months and $30,000 getting its liquor license but got into trouble when someone complained there was axe-throwing at the bar, in violation of a COVID-19 regulation.
Yard Hatchet stopped allowing axe-throwing but continued to provide food and beverage services. Establishments in the state that provide recreation activities like darts and axe-throwing as well as food and beverage are allowed to resume those parts of their business, as of March 5.
“While the court does not believe that the new guidance moots this case, the fact that Plaintiff can now engage in the activities that are the subject of its motion for injunctive relief weighs strongly against the need for a preliminary injunction,” D’Agostino wrote.
“With decreasing daily infections and increasing portions of the population being inoculated, it is becoming increasingly less likely that Plaintiff will face more restrictive conditions on its business in the near future.”
Even if Yard Hatchet had not been able to resume, it was unlikely to convince D’Agostino to grant its requested injunction. Yard Hatchet had complained that bowling alleys and casinos were allowed to offer their recreation services while it had not.
“(T)he Court presumes that the executive action is constitutional, making it incumbent upon the plaintiff to negate ‘every conceivable basis which might support’ it,” she wrote in February.
“That is no easy task, as the plaintiff must disprove all possible justifications for the executive action regardless of whether those justifications actually motivated the underlying decision-making.
“(T)he Court is unable to find that axe-throwing venues and bowling alleys/casinos are sufficiently similar for Plaintiff to succeed on its Equal Protection claim.”