Central Park Sightseeing LLC v. New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Sts., Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 8619
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Central Park Sightseeing (CPS) operates horse-drawn carriage rides in Central Park and sued NYCLASS and individual protestors after repeated demonstrations at carriage pick-up/drop-off zones.
- Protestors engaged in targeted demonstrations near carriage lines, including yelling at drivers/customers, handing literature, blocking access to carriages, and following or running after carriages on park roads. Videos showed conduct that sometimes spooked horses and impeded carriage movement.
- CPS sought a preliminary injunction alleging public nuisance, tortious interference with contracts, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
- Supreme Court granted a broad injunction restraining defendants (and “anyone else who becomes aware” of the order) from obstructing carriages or customers, touching or accosting persons or horses within nine feet, handing literature to carriage occupants, and aiding such acts.
- The Appellate Division reviewed First Amendment implications and modified the injunction to narrow its scope: limited to named defendants and those acting in concert, clarified exceptions for legal advice, and replaced a blanket/“floating” prohibition with a 9-foot buffer at loading/unloading zones that bars knowingly approaching within nine feet without consent for leaflet delivery, sign display, or oral protest/education.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants' conduct supports preliminary injunction for public nuisance | CPS: protestors created public harm and special injury to CPS by obstructing carriages and frightening horses, warranting injunction | NYCLASS: protest activity is protected speech; conduct is political protest | Held: Likelihood of success on public nuisance; videos show obstruction/spooking horses and special injury to CPS. Injunction upheld in modified form. |
| Whether defendants tortiously interfered with contracts | CPS: protesters knowingly interfered with both pre-purchased and on-board contracts, deterring passengers | NYCLASS: protest is protected and lawful; cancellation of pre-purchased tickets cannot alone support interference claim | Held: Likelihood of success on tortious interference; existence/awareness of contracts established. |
| Whether injunction violates First Amendment (content neutrality, overbreadth) | CPS: restrictions are content-neutral, aimed at safety and traffic flow, not message suppression | NYCLASS: injunction is overbroad, creates floating buffer zone, and restricts protected leafletting and speech | Held: Injunction is content-neutral and justified by significant government interest in safety/traffic; but floating buffer/blanket leaflet ban overbroad — modified to a 9-foot targeted approach and limited defendant scope. |
| Whether handing literature to carriage occupants and following carriages may be restricted | CPS: leafletting occupants and following/spooking carriages threaten safety and flow; may be enjoined | NYCLASS: leafletting and following are protected public fora activities | Held: Handing literature to carriage occupants and following/spooking carriages may be restricted to protect safety; leaflet delivery to carriage occupants and obstruction on roads may be enjoined; alternatives on sidewalks remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (injunctions regulating protest must burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (upheld zone limiting approaches to within a set distance for leaflet/solicitation to protect unwilling listeners)
- Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (recognizes captive audience and safety concerns in protest regulation)
- Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (state power to prevent interference with traffic and protect public safety)
- People v. Rubenfeld, 254 N.Y. 245 (public nuisance doctrine and public harm element)
- 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280 (distinguishing community harm vs. special injury for injunctions)