MSG Defends Right to Ban ‘Adverse’ Attorneys From NY Venues

A Manhattan judge questioned just how far Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is willing to go with its policy that bans from MSG-owned venues lawyers who are actively involved in litigation against the company, asking whether it would eventually include other groups, such as judges.

The so-called adverse attorney policy is at the center of MSG’s lawsuit against the New York State Liquor Authority, which threatened to revoke MSG’s liquor license saying that the ban on certain lawyers means that MSG is no longer generally open to the public.

“Today it’s attorneys. Tomorrow it’s judges. The next day it’s going to be police officers. The next day, it’s going to be firefighters,” New York Supreme Court 1st Appellate Department Associate Justice Jeffrey Oing said during oral arguments on Tuesday, in response to MSG’s argument that the policy only applies to 0.8% of New York lawyers, for a total of a few hundred affected people.

MSG isn’t asking the judge to like or endorse the policy, said the company’s lawyer Randy Mastro, a partner at King & Spalding LLP. MSG, he continued, is a private entertainment venue that has a right to exclude anyone it wants from its three Manhattan venues, including the famous arena, under state common law.

The company’s policy is about protecting the integrity of the litigation process, Mastro said.

“That’s very kind of Madison Square Garden to step in and help maintain the integrity of the courts, but that’s our job, not your job, isn’t it?” Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer retorted.

Alcoholic Beverage Control

The state argues MSG’s policy violates New York’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which gives gives the liquor authority jurisdiction to regulate the distribution, sale, and manufacturing of alcohol.

Mastro replied that state alcohol law doesn’t give the state liquor authority the right to impose “open to the public” requirements on privately-owned venues and then to use those requirements as the basis for revoking the venue’s license.

The state’s lawyer Anthony Raduazo, assistant solicitor general, responded saying, “they can exclude whomever they want from their venues. But they can’t do that and continue to sell alcohol at retail for on-premises consumption.”

In March, the lower court dismissed MSG’s case, saying it’s too soon to review the issue in court given that it’s not yet been reviewed by an administrative law judge.

The state’s liquor authority began investigating MSG in November 2022 after receiving complaints that the company was using facial-recognition technology to bar so-called adverse attorneys from its venues.

MSG’s facial-recognition technology also is the focus of a federal lawsuit that alleges MSG, in violation of New York law, profited from biometric information it collected from venue visitors.

MSG accuses the state of launching it’s “sham investigation” after complaints from “well-connected, disgruntled” attorneys.

The case is Madison Square Garden Ent. Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t, No. 2023-02125, oral argument 10/31/23.