You are on page 1of 5
SUPREME COURT : STATE OF NEW YORK ‘COUNTY OF ROCKLAND .b., on behalé of his minor chilaren, Roig; Jy and B.€-, on behalf of Their minor ehiléren, Av 68.5 3... fon behalf of her minor child, BR.) Livery on Behalf of nis four minor Children; D. and ReJ., on behalf of thei minor children, ‘8. 6 Oss K.key on behalf of hee minor children, M.'& Cl Uk., on behalf of his minor chad, Lr M.K., on behalf of his Sinor child, Al Wty on behalf of her twa minor childrens V.M. and Act, On behalf of their minor enilé, 1-3 and Mu, on Behalt of their winor Children; fo, Ne S-? Kl, on Dehalt St her minor children, Ro fA. HP. Sh behalf of his minor children, Tr) Gnd fe. Pe, on behalf of her minor Ghiids Ye; WR, on behalf of Mer fBinor children, Ro 6 Buz J-Rey on Behalf of her minor child, Co) ToT.» Sn'bchali of hus minor child, Mai Yinvs on behalf of her sinor’ child, U.P bode and M.o-, on behalé of enear Binor son, As? C-B., on behelf of her Binor child, W.7 JcR., on behalf of PiDhsnor ehilaven, JM and J.B. Vi, on behalf of ber minor child, ViMLG.9 J.P. and S.L., on behalf of their minor child, Cub. R:Ber on Sonelt’ of ner minor child @.7'6.R., om Bohait of hee minor child, KPO: K:Poy balbehatf of her minor child, AF Cece gn behalf of her minor’ child, Kiw.d fuccs on behalf of her minor RAGA Gales; JcM-D., on Behalt of fer minor childizen}, K.0. and 6.0.5 ween gn behabé of his minor child, fo ba Tees on behalf of her minor Chiaren EAR, and ote petitioners, -against= ‘county OF ROCKLAND, Respondents hs and fer a Proceeding Brought Picsuant to Article 78 of the Civil page 1+ rots nacerveo wvsce?: 96/05/2019 = “fo commence the starstory ties oslo for appecis as of sgh {cbin ssiSiaiy, you ace advised with noties of entry, upen all parties: DECESION & ORDER Index Wo: 031783/2019 E. HON. tt cn 3 RECEIVED NYSCEP: 04/05/2028 ROLF tf, THOR: ATSC. Petitioners commenced the within Article 78 proceeding to challenge @ “Declaration of » Local State of Emergency for Rockland County” (hereinafter “Energeacy Declaration”) issued by Edwin o. Day, the County Executive of Rockland County, on March 26, 2019 and amended on March 28, 2019. The Emergency eclaration, which wos issued in response’ to a measles cutbreax in Rockland county Pursvant to Executive Law §24, provides, in relevant part, as Follows I. Prohibitions From 12:01 a.m., March 27, 2019 to 12:59 p.m, April 25, 2019, no parent ox guardian of a minor or’ infant under the age of 18 shall cause, allow, permit, or suffer a minor or infant under cheir supervision, te enter any place of public assembly in Rockland County, Af that minor of infant is not vaccinated against measles for any reason other than being serologically immune to measles as documented by a physician, or prevented fron receiving a measles vaccination for a medical reason documented by a physician, or because the snfant is under the age of 6 monthe. The Eneegency Declaration defines “a place of public assembly” as: “a place where more than 10 persons are Intended to congregate for purposes such as civic, governmental, social, or religious Eunctions, or for recreation or shopping, or for food or drink consunption, or awaiting transportation, or for daycare or educational purposes, of for medical treatment. A place of Public assembly shall also include public Evansportation venieles, inclucing but not. Limited to, publicly or privately owned buses or trains, but does not include taxi or livery vehicles.” Petitioners herein are the parents of children affected by the Emergency beclaration in that their children ~ who are not vaccinated pursuant to @ religious exemption ~ are now excluded Erom attending school and other places of public assembly. Thus, Petitioners comtenead the within Article 78 proceeding seeking an Order declaring the Emergency Declaration to be null and void on the grounds that the Emergency Oeclaretion is, inter alia, arbitrary and capricious and con ry to law. Upon the filing of re is undisputed that the schools attended by Petitioners’ chiléren have no reported cases of the noasles: Page -2- 2of s sc re BYSCBF DOC. HO. 36 RECEIVED N¥SCRP: 96/05/2018, these Petition, Petitioners also moved, by way of Order to Show ‘ause, for temporary injunctive relief, i.e., an Order temporarily enjoining Respondent from enforcing the Emergency Declaration and Bermitting Petitioners’ children to return to school and otherwise assemble in public places. Respondent opposes the issuance of @ stay. The Court has considered the following papers: 1. Order te Show Cause, Petition, Sussman Affirmation and Exhibits 1 and 2 attached thereto, Declaration of BF: i Hendricks ritzpatrick, and Petitioners” Affidavits: and 2. Respondent’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Order to Show Cause and attachment. Having read the foregoing papers and having heard arguments fom counsel on April 4, 2019 and due consideration having been given, the Court decides’ as follows It is well-settled that in order “[t]o obtain a preliminary injunction, “the moving party must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) that the equities balance in his or her favor.” e lfarb_v. Ramapo, 167 R.D.3d 1008, 1010 (2d Dept 2018) (Zaternal citations omitted). Whether “'to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court./" Jd., quoting, x of Armanid: Toun_of Oveter day, 126 A.0.3d 894, 894-095 (2d Dept. 2015). Applied here, the Cour: finds that Petitioners have established their ontatlement to a preliminary injunction “to establish @ likelihood of success on the merits, the movant must show its right to a preliminary Injunction is plain on | the facts of the case.... However, the existence of a factual | dispute wil not bar the imposition of 4 preliminary injunction if TEES necessary to preserve the status quo and the party to be enjoined will suffer no great hardship as a result of its issuance.” Is v. Dnion Collage, 195 A.D.24 447, 448 (2d dept. 1993) (Internal citations omitted). Here, Petitioners’ likelihood of Success on the merits does not center around disputed facts. Rather, Petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits turns on | a legal issue, i.e., whether Mr. Day had the authority pursuant co Executive Law $24 to Leave the Emergency Declaration. As expressly stated in the Bnergency Declaration, Nr. Day cited to Executive Law $24 a9 the legal basis for which he issued the Emergency Declaration.’ Section 24 of the Executive Law, Entitled “Local state of emergency: local emergency orders by chief executive,” states, in relevant part 2 specifically, the Sneegency Declarstion states, in relevant part: sourguant ts tne powers vested in me, by viteue of Eyecotive Law $24)! h ation sf a Local Stave of baergency for Rockland County we tur the Measles Ouebreas Energeney Direct ve, Sea, page -2-