• Home
  • Our Team
    • Michael S. Hiller
    • Lauren A. Rudick
    • David N. Feldman
    • Fatima Afia
    • Susan M. Fauls
    • Paul M. Kampfer
    • Gina Mungioli
    • Zachary Tyson
    • Scott D. Woller
    • Jason E. Zakai
  • Commercial
    Litigation
    • What Is an Equitable Remedy?
  • Business
    Law
    • Drafting LLC Agreements
    • Let Our New York Employment Attorneys Negotiate Your Executive Employment Agreement
    • Partnership Formation
  • Cannabis Law
    • U.S. Supreme Court Petition
    • Amicus Briefs for Supreme Court Petition
    • Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Appeals Court Decision Is In
  • Land-Use &
    Zoning Law
  • Insurance
    Law
  • Disability
    Insurance Law
    • ERISA Long Term Disability Claims and Appeals Processes: Overview
    • Filing Your Disability Claim
    • Long-Term Disability (LTD) Denial
    • Appealing Your Denied Disability Claim
    • Reasons for Disability Denial
    • ERISA Disability Lawsuits: Standards of Review
    • Proving Disability Based on Chronic Pain
    • Disability Claims FAQs
  • Employment
    Law
  • Success
    Stories
  • Articles
  • Blog
    • TBTLegal
    • HPC Blog
  • Contact
Menu navimg
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Michael S. Hiller
    • Lauren A. Rudick
    • David N. Feldman
    • Fatima Afia
    • Susan M. Fauls
    • Paul M. Kampfer
    • Gina Mungioli
    • Zachary Tyson
    • Scott D. Woller
    • Jason E. Zakai
  • Commercial
    Litigation
    • What Is an Equitable Remedy?
  • Business
    Law
    • Drafting LLC Agreements
    • Let Our New York Employment Attorneys Negotiate Your Executive Employment Agreement
    • Partnership Formation
  • Cannabis Law
    • U.S. Supreme Court Petition
    • Amicus Briefs for Supreme Court Petition
    • Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Federal Cannabis Complaint
    • Press Release – Appeals Court Decision Is In
  • Land-Use &
    Zoning Law
  • Insurance
    Law
  • Disability
    Insurance Law
    • ERISA Long Term Disability Claims and Appeals Processes: Overview
    • Filing Your Disability Claim
    • Long-Term Disability (LTD) Denial
    • Appealing Your Denied Disability Claim
    • Reasons for Disability Denial
    • ERISA Disability Lawsuits: Standards of Review
    • Proving Disability Based on Chronic Pain
    • Disability Claims FAQs
  • Employment
    Law
  • Success
    Stories
  • Articles
  • Blog
    • TBTLegal
    • HPC Blog
  • Contact
Logo
Logo
(212) 319-4000
Email Us Directly
Close

Contact Us Today!

I have read theThe information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.disclaimer.
captcha

Home >> METROPOLITAN MUSEUM “SETTLEMENT”? NOT SO FAST!

METROPOLITAN MUSEUM “SETTLEMENT”? NOT SO FAST!

For Immediate Release

On February 26, 2016, the Metropolitan Museum of Art issued a press release, falsely announcing a “settlement” of the class action lawsuit that challenges the Museum’s admission policy. In fact, there is no settlement. Class actions cannot be settled in the absence of two approvals by the Court and, in this case, the class action lawyers only requested the first such approval three days after the Museum wrongly announced that it had been given and finalized.

Court approval of a proposed settlement is not a mere formality, but rather must be litigated. As explained by Michael Hiller, who represents plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit against the Museum, “the most that can be said is that the Museum has developed a proposed deal in one of the two lawsuits concerning the admission policy, and the proposed deal will be considered by the Court in about four months.”

Mr. Hiller, whose clients filed the first lawsuit against the Museum concerning its admissions policy, refused to agree to the deal proposed by the Museum. According to Hiller, his clients “were originally part of the negotiations, but withdrew after discussions led them to believe that the resolution sought by the Museum was completely unreasonable.” Hiller maintains that, “based upon the proposed deal struck last week, the decision to withdraw from negotiations was the right one – this is an absolutely terrible deal.”

Hiller has prepared a summary entitled “Why We Are Opposing the Proposed Settlement with the Metropolitan Museum.” In it, Hiller contends that members of the class and the general public would not receive any real benefit from the proposed settlement other than a very slight modification of the Museum’s sign which, as reflected in the proposed agreement, the Museum can change after just 78 months — or earlier if certain “unspecified governmental approvals” are obtained. “Meanwhile,” Hiller continues, “the Museum would receive a full and permanent discharge of all liability for its pattern of illegal and deceptive misconduct, even if it were to nullify the supposed deal the day after it were approved by the Court.”

The problems for the Museum are not limited to its misleading press release concerning a settlement that didn’t actually happen; Hiller also took issue with the Museum’s implication that the Courts have ruled that the Museum has the right to charge for admission. Hiller confirms that “no Court has ever granted the Museum permission to charge admission. Although the Museum repeatedly has argued that the statute barring the Museum from charging admission has been superseded or was otherwise replaced, no Court ever accepted that argument.”

Pat Nicholson, one of the plaintiffs Hiller represents, voiced her disappointment with the proposed settlement, emphasizing that it would “violate the bargain struck long ago between the Museum and the people, by which the Museum agreed to provide free admission to the public in exchange for public funding of the Museum and free rent, maintenance and security for its building. The taxpayers have lived up to their end of the bargain. The Museum has not.”

Contact: Michael S. Hiller (646) 408-5995
Patricia Nicholson (917) 597-2283

Email Us Today !

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does NOT establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
captcha

connect with us

Hiller, PC 641 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022

Phone: (212) 319-4000 Fax: (212) 753-4530

View Map

Areas Served:

Hiller, PC serves individuals, community groups, and businesses throughout the New York metropolitan area, including New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island, and in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland, and Kings counties. We also represent policyholders in insurance matters nationwide.

Hiller, PC © Copyright 2021   |   Disclaimer