On Wednesday, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Metropolitan Museum of Art by granting its motion to dismiss claims that the museum’s admissions policy violates both its 1878 lease with the City and a State appropriations act from 1893. 

In 2012, two members of the Metropolitan Museum of Art sued the museum for fraud, saying that the museum misleads visitors into thinking that admission fees are mandatory, not suggested.

“Instead of providing free and open access to art for the masses, without regard to socioeconomic status (as originally designed), the MMA has transformed the museum building and museum exhibition halls into an expensive, fee-for-viewing, elite tourist attraction, where only those of financial means can afford to enter a publicly subsidized, city-owned institution,” stated a suit against the museum.

The museum issued a statement on October 30, 2013:

The Met is delighted with the ruling and trusts this decision once and for all validates its longtime pay-what-you wish admissions policy—which, as the judge has declared, guarantees fairness and access for visitors of all economic means.

In describing the Museum’s existing admissions policy, the judge said: “All members of the public can afford to visit the Museum under the present scheme.”

The court also made reference to the recent lease amendment executed by the Museum and the City of New York, noting that “not only does it not alter the analysis in this decision, if anything, it bolsters the court’s ruling.”

The price of $25 for adults, and less for seniors and students are not clearly stated as suggested fees, contend Theodore Grunewald and Patricia Nicholson, longtime members of the museum, in their suit.

The pair said they took a survey that resulted in 85% of nonmembers saying that they thought admission to the museum was mandatory.

Over six million people visited the museum last year.