NY Courts Give NRA Two Lumps Of Coal

The first lump of coal comes from the Appellate Division, First Division. As NRA In Danger reported, the Appellate Division affirmed Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling in which he refused the dismiss the New York AG’s first cause of action in their complaint.

The court said in an unanimous decison:

Plaintiff alleged in detail that the NRA failed to properly administer charitable assets, resulting in improper administration and diminution of property held for charitable purposes; engaged in waste and diversion of charitable assets; and retaliated against whistleblowers. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under EPTL 8-1.4, which enhances New York Attorney General’s enforcement powers and authorizes it to institute proceedings against trustees who fail to properly administer charitable assets.

As NRA In Danger notes, the court considered the remaining arguments posed by the NRA and found them “unavailing”.

The NRA’s motion from August 15, 2022 is here while Judge Cohen’s denial of the motion to dismiss is here.

The second lump of coal comes from Judge Cohen in a Court Notice issued on December 22nd. The notice states that Judge Cohen has reviewed letters from the NRA with a proposed motion to dismiss the First Cause of Action on the grounds that the statue is “unconstitutionally vague”. He notes that while the AG’s office argues such a motion is procedurally barred, he disagrees given the Commercial Division Rules. He then throws a bone to the NRA’s attorney by saying motions that represent their client’s best interests are not limited. Judge Cohen then lowers the boom.

In any event, given that the parties have undertaken the effort, the Court will provide the following comments. The NRA has had multiple opportunities to present dispositive motions, and each has been dealt with at great length and with extraordinary expenditure of time and effort by the parties and the Court. The newly proposed motion (which would be, at least, the eighty-sixth motion filed in this case) is not based on new facts or a change in the law, and the NRAs arguments clearly could have been asserted in one of its earlier (timely) motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, but was not. Instead, it is being proposed on the eve of trial, with the attendant distraction and potential for delay at a critical period for the parties and the Court as we all prepare for trial. The Court believes this is precisely the type of motion the single motion rule was designed to prohibit. Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that the proposed motion is a challenge to the Courts subject matter jurisdiction, which as the NRA notes is typically an argument that the Court can (and should) consider at any time. All that said, as noted above, the NRA does not need the Courts permission to file its proposed motion. However, the Court does not anticipate interrupting trial preparation or the trial itself (thereby extending the service time of jurors) to devote substantive attention to a motion that could have been brought months or years ago.

I think Judge Cohen’s legal response could be translated to say what Mom’s everywhere have told kids forever- just because you can doesn’t mean you should. A Dad’s response might be more to the point – quit fucking around and get to work.