Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lederman v. New York City Dept. of Parks and Recreation

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

September 25, 2013

Robert LEDERMAN, Jack Nesbitt, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, as a Municipal agency, Adrian Benepe, Commissioner, in his individual and official capacity as Parks Commissioner, City of New York, as a municipality, Michael Bloomberg, Honorable Mayor, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

Submitted: Aug. 23, 2013.

Page 200

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 201

Julie Milner, Milner Law Office, Elmhurst, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Julie Steiner (Edward F.X. Hart and Sheryl Neufeld, on the brief), New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CABRANES, HALL, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

CHIN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants Robert Lederman and Jack Nesbitt appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, J. ), granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, former Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, the City of New York, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (collectively, the " City" ), dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs also appeal from the District Court's June 1, 2011 order granting the City's motion for a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are " visual artists" who sell their works on sidewalks and in public parks in New York City. Over the years, the City has attempted to regulate the sales of " expressive matter" — including books, art, sculpture, and photos— in certain parts of New York City, and plaintiffs have challenged the City's efforts on First Amendment grounds. See, e.g., Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689 (2d Cir.1996); Lederman v. Giuliani, No. 98 Civ. 2024(LMM), 1998 WL 186753 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 1998).

Between 2001 and 2010, the number of expressive-matter vendors increased significantly in certain City parks. In 2010, the City revised the vending regulations in response to this increase. See 56 Rules of the City of New York (" R.C.N.Y." ) §§ 1-02, 1-05. Under the revised regulations, expressive-matter vendors may generally vend, without a permit, anywhere in the City's parks, provided they comply with certain minimum requirements relating to their activities, such as restrictions on the size and placement of their vending tables. See id. § 1-05(b)(4)-(8). To sell their wares in Union Square Park, Battery Park, High Line Park, and portions of Central Park, however, expressive-matter vendors may only vend in a limited number of designated spots, allocated on a non-discretionary first-come, first-served basis. See id. § 1-06(b)(2)-(3). Plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge the 2010 revisions.

During discovery, plaintiffs sought to take the depositions of Mayor Bloomberg and former Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler. On June 1, 2011, the District Court issued a protective order barring those depositions.

On September 30, 2012, the District Court granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissing the complaint and holding, inter alia, that the 2010 revisions did not violate the First Amendment. See Lederman v. N.Y.C. Dep't of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.