Governor's response letter on PI order disputes (Feb. 8, 2021) — Agudath Israel v. Cuomo (2d Cir.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML · Doc. 43 · 2021-02-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

STATE OF NEW YORK 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
  LETITIA JAMES 
                                                         DIVISION OF STATE COUNSEL            
ATTORNEY GENERAL 
                                                        LITIGATION BUREAU 
 
 
28 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10005 ● PHONE (212) 416-8610 ● WWW.AG.NY.GOV 
Writer’s Direct Dial: (212) 416-8661 
Via ECF 
           February 8, 2021 
 
 
       
The Honorable Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto 
United States Courthouse 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
Re: Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-04834 (E.D.N.Y.)(KAM)(RML) 
Dear Judge Matsumoto: 
 
This Office represents Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, Defendant in the above-referenced 
matter. Defendant regrets the need to submit another letter to the Court on this matter, but he is 
constrained to address the misstatements and mischaracterizations in Plaintiffs’ unauthorized letter 
of yesterday (ECF No. 42). Defendant wants to ensure that the Court has a clear picture of the 
parties’ positions before this morning’s conference. To that end, Defendant provides the following 
brief response:  
1. Plaintiffs misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. 
Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68-69 (2020), in illogically claiming that a preliminary injunction 
against Executive Order (“EO”) 202.68’s 25% and 33% capacity restrictions on houses 
of worship should continue beyond the date that the Governor lifts those restrictions. 
Once houses of worship are removed from EO 202.68, the State can take no further 
action against them under that executive order.  
 
2. Plaintiffs also belatedly seek to include language from their affiant, Timothy Flanigan, 
M.D., in the Preliminary Injunction Order. Dr. Flanigan, however, has not been subject 
to cross-examination; and his unexamined affidavit should not be blindly incorporated 
into any Court order. 
 
3. Plaintiffs also reiterate their request that the Court expressly make a finding that 
Defendant advised it that the 25% and 33% capacity restrictions “cannot satisfy strict 
scrutiny.” But Defendant has never made that representation. To be clear, Defendant’s 
position is simply that he does not oppose the entry of an injunction on the 25% and 
33% capacity restrictions set forth in EO 202.68.  
Thank you for Your Honor’s consideration of this matter. 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
_______/S/___________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Todd A. Spiegelman 
cc: All Counsel (via ECF) 
Case 1:20-cv-04834-KAM-RML   Document 43   Filed 02/08/21   Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1102

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.454069.43.0.pdf

Size

141,989 bytes

SHA-256

c939b4202082f7c2d408660537da9d3ea091e8e0585020e56589411d199198f1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.454069.43.0.pdf

Original

archive.org