Queens Judge Dismisses New York City Council Members' Effort to Hold Inquiry on COVID Restrictions
The petition for a summary inquiry brought by six City Council members was dismissed in a July 2 decision. Attorney Jimmy Wagner says the group plans to appeal.
In a July 2 decision, Queens Supreme Court Judge Chereé Buggs denied and dismissed a petition for a summary inquiry filed by six New York City Council members last December. The inquiry would have brought numerous current and former officials into court to answer questions about “alleged violations and neglect of the law relating to the lockdown in NewYork City (NYC), the imposition of a lockdown, the shutting down of businesses and churches, and the stripping of NYC citizens of their basic liberties.”
The decision follows an April hearing where attorney Jimmy Wagner gave oral arguments for the City Council members while Council Minority Leader Joann Ariola and workers who lost their jobs under the City’s vaccine mandates looked on from the gallery. Ariola and Council members Kristy Marmorato, Inna Vernikov, Vickie Paladino, David Carr, and Robert Holden filed the petition. Summary inquiries are provided for under Section 1109 of the New York City Charter.
Councilwoman Ariola commented on the decision:
I’m extremely disappointed in the way the judicial system ruled in this instance. We had everything necessary for a summary inquiry to be granted. Unfortunately, this seems more like a politically motivated decision, rather than one that is grounded in any kind of legal framework.
Wagner says he plans to file an appeal for the petitioners.
Read a report on the April hearing:
In her decision, Judge Buggs rejected the argument that New York City officials played a role in imposing lockdowns and business closures and should therefore be questioned about them in a summary inquiry proceeding. She wrote:
This Court takes judicial notice that the New York State on PAUSE was an Executive Order signed by then Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Order included, among other things, the 100% Closure of non-essential businesses statewide, and is not subject to review under §1109 of the New York City Charter; accordingly, any arguments related to that are without merit. Further, Respondents’ counsel represented on the record that “[t]he City did not close churches” . . . Thus, this analysis will solely focus on the parties’ arguments surrounding the vaccine mandate.
Judge Buggs then addressed the City’s imposition of COVID-19 vaccination mandates, analyzing three key criteria for holding a summary inquiry:
(1) the importance of the issue that would be subject of the inquiry; (2) the pendency of ongoing investigations or lack thereof; and (3) whether the violations and neglect of duties have been fully explored in the public
In her analysis of those three points, the judge found that:
The “rules that governed” during the pandemic are “not necessarily pertinent to the rules that should govern today” or in the future, and relevance to potential future consequences in large part determines the importance of the issue. In other words, COVID policies were a one-off. Buggs wrote that they were tailored to the nature of the virus, and that to “argue that our treatment of COVID-19 will have any bearing on any future virus would be to ignore the very nature of viruses.”
The petitioners “failed to establish the absence of investigations and transparent information regarding the Vaccine Mandate sufficient ‘to safeguard the public interest’” because officials presented rationales for requiring vaccination when they imposed the mandates, and there is ongoing litigation challenging their constitutionality.
The “Petitioners’ main argument surrounding a violation or neglect of duty” hinges on questions “surrounding changes to the law, the appropriate guidelines to be followed, application of the correct legal standard and legally mandated acts.” These, she wrote, are questions of law that are not appropriate for a judicial inquiry and have already been addressed by various court decisions.
Judge Buggs concluded her decision by granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition:
The Petitioners have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. While this Court acknowledges the accounts of the various citizens whose voices the Petitioners represent, and respects their efforts to seek answers on their behalf, an analysis of their interests and the purpose of the New York City Charter §1109 reveals that a summary inquiry would be inappropriate.
Therefore, it is ORDERED, that the Petition is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED, that motion is granted and the Petition is dismissed.
Read the full decision:
Council Member Joann Ariola spoke with me about the petition during this conversation in May:
Another gatekeeper stops honest inquiry.
Why is it that when it comes to questioning things, the legal system is always against the truth?
If there's nothing wrong done, the inquiry wouldn't cause issues.
Judge Buggs Bunny is probably sponsored by ACME pharma division 😂 🥕.