In a 5-0 decision, the appeals court rejected
artists' contentions that the limits covering Central Park south
of 86th Street, Battery Park, High Line Park and Union Square
Park violated their free speech and equal protection rights
under the state constitution, and amounted to illegal
discrimination.
Lawyers for the artists did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.
The Appellate Division decision came nine years after litigation
began over rules adopted by the city in July 2010 that capped
the number of vendors of "expressive matter" such as paintings,
photos, entertainment, newspapers and books.
These rules were meant to combat congestion, enhance parks'
beauty and allow New Yorkers to enjoy the parks for recreation.
The city's Department of Parks and Recreation allowed vendors in
the restricted areas to sell on a first-come, first-served
basis.
It capped the number of vendors at 100, or 140 on days the
Greenmarket in Union Square was not operating, down from roughly
300 before the rules took effect.
In Tuesday's decision, Justice Barbara Kapnick called the rules
"an appropriate response to demonstrated concerns" about the
vendors, and found no proof that the plaintiffs were denied
equal protection.
"The record supports defendants' contention that there are many
more opportunities for expressive matter vending than food and
souvenir vending in the designated city parks," Kapnick wrote.
Tuesday's decision set aside a 2017 injunction against enforcing
the rules, and ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed.
"We are pleased the court agreed that these rules are fully
consistent with the law and promote the health, safety and
welfare of the public," Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman for the
city's law department, said in an email.
In 2013, the federal appeals court in Manhattan rejected a
challenge to the rules under the U.S. Constitution, whose free
speech clause is narrower than the clause in New York's
constitution.
The case is Dua et al v New York City Department of Parks and
Recreation et al, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, 1st Department, No. 8291.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Tom Brown and
Marguerita Choy)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|