Artists United Complaint Fed Ct

8/8/2019 Artists United Complaint Fed Ct

1/9

JonSchuyler rooks JB7218)j [email protected]. McGrath KM7613)[email protected] IS244l)j [email protected] NIZERLLP666 Fifth AvenueNew York,NewYork 10103-0084(2r2) 77-e700Attorneysor PlaintffiI-INITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTSOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEW YORKDIANEI. DUA, JOELKAYE, BRYAN CLOSE,RADOSLUVGAVILILOVIC, DINA KALRA, VICTORSPINELLI,TED RONAN,DONNA LEEMICHAS,MICHAEL MURRAY,BAYO IRIBHOGBE,ROBYNWOHL,andARTISTSLINITED,

Plaintiffs,

CaseNo.:COMPLAINTANDJURY DEMAND

V.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENTOF PARKSAND RECREATION asa Municipalagency);ADRIEN BENEPE in his Official Capacity s he ParksCommissioner);ITY OFNEW YORK (asamunicipality); ndMICHAEL BLOOMBERG in hisOfficial Capacity s heMayor),

PlaintiffS, ianeL Dua,JoelKaye,BryanClose,RadosluvGavililovic,DinaKalra,Victor Spinelli,TedRonan,DonnaLeeMichas,MichaelMwray,Bayo ribhogbe,RobynWohl,andArtistsUnited,by theirattorneys, hillipsNizerLLP, asand or theirVerifiedComplaint,respectfully llege s ollows:

1tt8249.2


2/9

SurnunNT oF THECasn1. On June18,2010,Defendant ity of NewYork ("NewYork City" or "City"),

throughDefendantNew York City Department f ParksandRecreation"ParksDepartmenf'),adopted evised ules o sections-02 and1-05(b) f Title56 of theOfficialCompilation f theRulesof the City of New York (the"RevisedRules"). The RevisedRulesbecome ffectiveonJuly 19,2010. A trueandcorrectcopy of the RevisedRules s attached eretoasExhibit A.

2. As adopted,heRevisedRulesseverely estrict henumberand ocationofvendorswho offer for saleFirstAmendment rotectedexpressivemattef in certainCity parks:CentralPark including n frontof the MetropolitanMuseumof Art); Union SquarePark;BatteryPark;and he High Line Park collectively,he"Restricted arks"). The RevisedRulesdefineo'expressivematter" o include isualart. 56 RCNY $ 1-02.

3. Plaintiffs severalndividualartistswho for years egularlyhaveshownandsoldtheir visual artat Union Square arkandoutside he MetropolitanMuseumof Art (the"Met"),andanunincorporatedssociation f which hey aremembers seek o enforceheir rightsunderthe First andFourteenth mendments f the Constitution f the United States; rticle I, $$8 and11,of the Constitution f theStateof New York; andvarious ederalandstate ivil rights aws.

4. Plaintiffsseek njunctive elief(temporary, reliminaryandpermanent)preventinghe RevisedRules rombecoming ffective,anda declaratoryudgment hat heRevisedRulesareunconstitutionaln their aceand/orasapplied. n theevent emporaryandlorpreliminary njunctive elief s notgranted, nd he RevisedRulesbecome ffective,Plaintiffsalsoseekmoneydamages.

1118249.2


3/9

JuRrsnrcuoN5. Jurisdictionf hisCourts nvoked ursuantoand nder 8U.S.C. g1331

(federal uestion), 343 civil rights),1367 supplemental),201and2202declaratoryjudgment), nd42U.S.C. $1983 nd1988 civil ights).

VBNun6. Venue s proper n theUnitedStatesDistrictCourt or theSouthemDistrictof

NewYorkpursuanto 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(I-2).Tnn P,lnrrns

7. PlaintiffDiane . Dua s an artistwho creates xpressivehotographsnd esidesin the City of New York,andwho showsandsellsherexpressive rtoutside f the Met.

8. PlaintiffJoelKaye s an artistwho creates xpressive hotographsnd esidesntheCity of New York,andwho showsandsellshis expressivert n Union Square ark.

9. PlaintiffBryanCloses an artistwho creates xpressivertandwho residesn theCity of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressivert n UnionSquare ark.

10. PlaintiffRadosluvGavililovic s anartistwho creates xpressivert andwhoresidesn New York,andwho showsandsellshis expressivert n UnionSquare ark.11. PlaintiffDinaKalra s anartistwho createsxpressivetchings,ndwhoresides

in the City of New York, andwho showsandsellsher expressivert n UnionSquare ark.12. PlaintiffVictor Spinelli s anartistwho creates xpressivehotographs,ndwho

residesn WhitePlains,New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressivert n UnionSquarePark.

13. PlaintiffTed Ronan s anartistwho creates xpressive culptures,ndwhoresidesn theCity of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressive rtoutsideheMet.

nt8249.2


4/9

14. PlaintiffDonnaLeeMichas s an artistwho creates xpressivehotographs,ndwho residesn theCity of New York, andwho showsandsellsherexpressivert n UnionSquare ark.

15. PlaintiffMichaelMurray s anartistwho creates xpressivehotographsnwood,andwho residesn City of New York,andwho showsandsellshis expressive rt nUnion Square ark.

16. PlaintiffBayo ribhogbe s an artistwho creates xpressiveaintings, ndwhoresidesn theCity of New York,andwho showsandsellshis expressive rt outsidehe Met.

17. PlaintiffRobynWohl is an artistwho creates xpressiverints,andwho residesntheCity of New York,andwho showsandsellsherexpressive rtoutsidehe Met.

18. Plaintiff ArtistsUnited s anunincorporatedssociated, adeup of memberswhoinclude he ndividualplaintiffs n this awsuit.

19. Defendant arksDepartments an agency f the City maintaining n address tTheArsenal,CentralPark,830FifthAvenue,NewYork,New York 10021.

20. Defendant drianBenepe"Benepe")s beingsuedn his official capacity s heCommissioner f the ParksDepartment.

2I. DefendantCity is amunicipalcorporation uly ncorporated nder he aws of theState f NewYork.

22. Defendant Michael Bloomberg (the "Mayor") is being sued n his officialcapacrtyas he Mayor of the City of New York.

Facrunr, BacxcnouNo23. ThePlaintiffs,other hanArtists United,arevisualartistswho showandoffer for

sale heir respectivexpressive atter n oneor moreof theRestricted arks.24. Expressivemattervendors reentitled o First Amendment rotection.

1t18249.2


5/9

25. As adopted, he RevisedRulesseverely estrict the number and location ofvendorsof expressivematter in the RestrictedParks.

26. In pertinent part, the RevisedRulesprovide:[E]xpressivematter vendorsmay only vend expressivematter at thespeciJically designatedspots dentffied by the Commissioner n thesccompanying mapsand asmarked by a Department decal, medallion, orother form of marking, on the specific location of the approvedvendingspot,unless hey are only vending expressivematter without using a cart,display stand or other deviceand without occupyinga specific location forlonger than necessaryo conduct a transactionand are otherwise ncompliance with Department ules. Thesespotsshall be allocated upon a

first comerJirstserveDasisexceptas otherwiseprovidedby law and anyexpressivemattervendor may only vend expressivematter centereddirectly behind the Departmentdecal,medallion, or other form ofmarking. Only one expressivematter vendor is authorized to venddirectly behind the Department decal,medallion, or otherform ofmarking as ndicatedby the Departmentdecal,medallion, or other form ofmarking and if multiple expressivematter vendorsattempt o vendexpressivematterat anyoneDepartmentdecal, medallion, or other form ofmarking and f it cannot be otherwisedetermined which expressivematter vendor urrivedJirst, then all such expressive matter vendors atsuch spot will be in violation of this section and may be directed to leavethe area of that Department decal,medallion, or other orm of markingimmediately. Any suchexpressivemattervendor failing to leave he areaof the Departmentdecal, medallion, or other form of marking immediatelyupondirectionasrequiredunder he precedingsentence ill be inviolation of these ules.

56 RCNY $ 1-05(bX2) emphases dded).27. By limiting the numberof "specificallydesignated pots,"by prohibiting"spot

sharing" among expressivematter vendors,and by rationing those few spotson a "first come,first servebasis,"the RevisedRulesconstitute a de acto daily licensingprogramor lottery.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(FreeSpeech)28. Plaintiffs repeatand reallege he allegations

same orce and effect as hough set forth here at length'

1rt8249.2

1 hroush27 withthe


6/9

29. On their faceand as applied to Plaintiffs, the Revised Rulesconstitute animpermissible restrainton constitutionally protectedspeechunder the First Amendment to theUnited StatesConstitutionand Article 1, $ 8, of the New York StateConstitution, n that theyrequireauthorization rom the Park's Commissioner o engage n suchactivity and thuseffectively bar Plaintiffs from displaying or selling their art in the RestrictedParks.

30. The free speech ights affected by the RevisedRules are fundamental ightsguaranteedby the First Amendmentof the Constitution of the United Statesand Article 1, $ 8 ofthe Constitution of the Stateof New York.

31. The RevisedRulesarenot narrowly tailored to servea significant govemmentalinterest.

32. Whetherby intent or effect, the RevisedRules will curtail the Plaintiffs' FirstAmendment and Article 1, $ 8 rights.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Declaratory Judgment)33. Plaintiffs repeatand reallege he allegations n paragraphs1 through 32 with the

same orce and effect as hough set forth here at length.34. For all of the above-mentionedeasons, hereexistsan actual,substantialand

immediate controversywithin the Court's urisdiction, which controversy s the result ofDefendants'conductandwhich controversy an be redressedy a udicial decision n favor ofPlaintiffs. Thus,the Court may properly declarePlaintiffs' constitutionaland civil rights inrespectof this action.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Equal Protection)35. Plaintiffs repeatand reallege he allegations n paragraphs1 through 32 with the

same orce and effect as hough set forth here at length.

tt18249.2


7/9

36. The RevisedRules will permit a limited number of expressivematter vendors oexercise heir First Amendment and Article I, $ 8 rights each day, and will deny to all otherexpressivematter vendorsthe ability to exercise hose same ights on that sameday in a similarvenue.

37. The Revised Rules,therefore,constitute a governmentally-imposedsystemofdisparate reatmentof similarly situated ndividuals, namely expressivematter vendors.

38. On their faceand asapplied to Plaintiffs, the RevisedRulesthus violate Plaintiffs'constitutionalrights of Equal Protection.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Equal Protection)

39. Plaintiffs repeatand reallege he allegations n paragraphs1 through 32 with thesame orce and effect as hough set forth here at length.

40. Plaintiffs are membersof a specialclassbecausehey areengagedn FirstAmendmentprotectedactivitieswhich are fundamental ights.

4I. The statedpurposeof the Revised Rules s to reducecongestion n the RestrictedParks.

42. The Revised Rules, however,seek o realizethatpurposeby burdeningonlyexpressivematter vendors o the exclusionof all other vendorsutilizing the RestrictedParks.

43. Upon information and belief, the Green Market in Union SquarePark,theHoliday Markets, corporate-ownedart installations,and special corporateeventscreatemoredangerand congestion han all expressivematter vendors combined, but the RevisedRulesmakeno attempt o reduce andrestrict the activities, locations,or numbersof suchnon-expressivemattervendors soas o reduce congestion n the RestrictedParks.

1tt8249.2


8/9

44. Similarly, upon information and beliei the City has entered nto agreementswithfood and beveragevendors, -shirt, sunglassand sundrynon-expressivemattervendors o sell infront of the Met, and,although said vendorswill also createsignificant congestion, he RevisedRules make no attempt o reduce and restrict the activities, locations,or numbers of such non-expressivematter vendors so as o reducecongestion n front of the Met.

45. The Revised Rules, therefore,constitutea governmentally-imposedsystemofdisparate reatmentof similarly situated ndividuals namely all vendors who sell in theRestrictedParks.

46. On their face and as appliedto Plaintiffs, the RevisedRulesthus violate Plaintiffs'constitutionalrights of Equal Protection.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983)47. Plaintiffs repeatand reallege he allegations n paragraphs1 through 45 with the

same orce and effect as hough set forth here at length.48. Defendantsarepersonswho, under color of law, and as a result of their

promulgation and mpending enforcementhave subjectedand will subject Plaintiffs to thedeprivationof their civil rights asguaranteed y the First and FourteenthAmendments of theUnited StatesConstitution.

49. Defendantshave engagedand continue o engage n behaviorthat violatesPlaintiffs' constitutionalrights of free speechand equalprotectionand have thereby rreparablyinjured Plaintiffs.

50. Plaintiffs have suffered njuries anddamages,and seekattorneys' feesand costs.

ttt8249.2


9/9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectful ly request he following relief:(a) A declaratoryudgment hat the revisionof $$ 1-02and 1-05(b)of Title 56 of the

Official Compilation of the Rulesof the City of New York is unconstitutionalunder theConstitution of the United Statesand the Constitution of the Stateof New York, and thatenforcement f those esulationswould and doesviolate Plaintiffs' civil riehts under42 U.S.C.$$ 1983 nd1988.

(b) A permanent njunction enjoining Defendantsand their agencies,officers,employees,agentsand all personsacting in concert with them from enforcing, by meansofarrest, hreats of arrest, ssuanceof summonses, onfiscation of materials or any othermeansofenforcement, he Revised Rules.

(c) An award of monetary damageso Plaintiffs for those compensablenjuriessuffered by Plaintiffs in the above claims as a result of Defendants' enforcementof the RevisedRules. n an amount to be determined attrial.

(d) An award f reasonablettorneys'eespursuanto $ 1988.(e) Any other elief this Courtdeemsust andproper.

Dated:New York, New YorkJuIy7,2010PHILLPS NIZER LLP

AttorneyforPlaintffi666FifthAvenueNewYork,NewYork 10103-0084(2r2) 977-9700

in B. McGrathKM7613)JeffreyL. Shore IS244l)

t11.8249.2

Artists United Complaint Fed Ct

Documents

Transcript of Artists United Complaint Fed Ct