4 ms·

Interesting. I think she knows she has no case, but realized her eviction put them in violation of their liquor license, fighting back where it really hurt. Ban

Interesting. I think she knows she has no case, but realized her eviction put them in violation of their liquor license, fighting back where it really hurt. Banning lawyers might not be the best idea.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The problem is that her eviction has no case, so might as well weaponize the liquor license to arrive at a similar outcome. They got Capone on tax evasion. Picking a fight with sophisticated legal practitioners seems…poorly thought out? High level, perhaps private venues shouldn’t be able to ban someone from a venue simply because of who employs them? Perhaps craft the legislation around annual patrons served.
BizarroLand 4y ago
I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises. On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case. There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility. That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.
- gregors 4y ago
  When you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Banning someone because they're part of a protected class is typically the only exception, and not applicable here.
    - mission_failed 4y ago
      Given that a small number of companies are concentrating ownership of businesses, there really should be legislation that restricts their ability to 'ban' people. Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for food.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now. I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.
  - treis 4y ago
    James Dolan, as any Knicks fan will tell you, is a gigantic idiot. He's CEO of his daddy's company and basically sucks at everything he does.
    - robocat 4y ago
      James’ name showed up in the comments yesterday because he is CEO of AMC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496
    - tqi 4y ago
      Yeah this seems like a Dolan special: petty, poorly thought out, and potentially costly.
areyousure 4y ago
There might be another angle to this. The law firm's previous personal injury lawsuits against MSG were because they served alcohol to someone who later drove drunk. Multiple lawsuits were successful, in one case getting $20 million. In general they appear to represent drunk driving victims and associate with MADD.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The problem is that her eviction has no case, so might as well weaponize the liquor license to arrive at a similar outcome. They got Capone on tax evasion. Picking a fight with sophisticated legal practitioners seems…poorly thought out? High level, perhaps private venues shouldn’t be able to ban someone from a venue simply because of who employs them? Perhaps craft the legislation around annual patrons served.

BizarroLand 4y ago

I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises. On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case. There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility. That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.

gregors 4y ago
When you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Banning someone because they're part of a protected class is typically the only exception, and not applicable here.
  - mission_failed 4y ago
    Given that a small number of companies are concentrating ownership of businesses, there really should be legislation that restricts their ability to 'ban' people. Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for food.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now. I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.
- treis 4y ago
  James Dolan, as any Knicks fan will tell you, is a gigantic idiot. He's CEO of his daddy's company and basically sucks at everything he does.
  - robocat 4y ago
    James’ name showed up in the comments yesterday because he is CEO of AMC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34057496
  - tqi 4y ago
    Yeah this seems like a Dolan special: petty, poorly thought out, and potentially costly.

areyousure 4y ago

There might be another angle to this. The law firm's previous personal injury lawsuits against MSG were because they served alcohol to someone who later drove drunk. Multiple lawsuits were successful, in one case getting $20 million. In general they appear to represent drunk driving victims and associate with MADD.