JonSchuylerBrooks(JB7218)

j brooks@phillipsnizer.
com
B.
Kevin McGrath (KM7613)
kmcgrath@phillipsnizer.
com
JeffreyShore(IS244l)
j shore@phillipsnizer.com
PHILLPS NIZER LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York,New York 10103-0084
(2r2)e77-e700
Attorneysfor Plaintffi

I-INITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF NEW YORK

DIANE I. DUA, JOELKAYE, BRYAN CLOSE,

RADOSLUVGAVILILOVIC, DINA KALRA, VICTOR
SPINELLI,TED RONAN,DONNA LEE MICHAS,
MICHAEL MURRAY, BAYO IRIBHOGBE,ROBYN CaseNo.:
WOHL, andARTISTSLINITED,
COMPLAINTAND
Plaintiffs, JURY DEMAND

V.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENTOF PARKS

AND RECREATION(asa Municipalagency);
ADRIEN BENEPE(in his Official Capacityasthe Parks
Commissioner); CITY OF NEW YORK (asa
municipality);andMICHAEL BLOOMBERG(in his
Official Capacityasthe Mayor),

PlaintiffS,DianeL Dua,JoelKaye,BryanClose,RadosluvGavililovic,DinaKalra,

Victor Spinelli,TedRonan,DonnaLee Michas,MichaelMwray, Bayo Iribhogbe,RobynWohl,

andArtists United,by their attorneys,PhillipsNizer LLP, asandfor their Verified Complaint,

respectfullyallegeasfollows:

1tt8249.2
 SurnunNT oF THECasn

1. City of New York ("New York City" or "City"),

On June18,2010,Defendant

throughDefendantNew York City Departmentof ParksandRecreation("ParksDepartmenf'),

adoptedRevisedRulesto sectionsI-02 and1-05(b)of Title 56 of the Official Compilationof the

Rulesof the City of New York (the"RevisedRules"). The RevisedRulesbecomeeffectiveon

July 19,2010. A true andcorrectcopyof the RevisedRulesis attachedheretoasExhibit A.

2. As adopted,the RevisedRulesseverelyrestrictthe numberandlocationof

vendorswho offer for saleFirst Amendmentprotected"expressivemattef in certainCity parks:

CentralPark(includingin front of the MetropolitanMuseumof Art); Union SquarePark;Battery

Park;andthe High Line Park(collectively,the "RestrictedParks"). The RevisedRulesdefine

o'expressive
matter"to includevisualart. 56 RCNY $ 1-02.

3. Plaintiffs- severalindividualartistswho for yearsregularlyhaveshownandsold

their visual art at Union SquareParkandoutsidethe MetropolitanMuseumof Art (the"Met"),

andanunincorporated of which they aremembers- seekto enforcetheir rightsunder

association

the First andFourteenthAmendmentsof the Constitutionof the United States;Article I, $$ 8 and

11,of the Constitutionof the Stateof New York; andvariousfederalandstatecivil rightslaws.

4. Plaintiffsseekinjunctiverelief (temporary,preliminaryandpermanent)

preventingthe RevisedRulesfrom becomingeffective,anda declaratoryjudgmentthat the

on their faceand/orasapplied. In the eventtemporaryandlor

RevisedRulesareunconstitutional

preliminaryinjunctiverelief is not granted,andthe RevisedRulesbecomeeffective,Plaintiffs

alsoseekmoneydamages.

1118249.2
 JuRrsnrcuoN
5. Jurisdiction
of thisCourtis invokedpursuant
to andunder28U.S.C.gg 1331
(federalquestion),1343(civil rights),1367(supplemental),
2201and2202(declaratory

judgment),and42U.S.C.$$ 1983and1988(civilrights).

VBNun

6. Venueis properin the United StatesDistrict Courtfor the SouthemDistrict of

to 28 U.S.C.g 1391(b)(I-2).
New York pursuant

Tnn P,lnrrns

7. Plaintiff DianeI. Dua is an artistwho createsexpressivephotographs

andresides

in the City of New York, andwho showsandsellsher expressiveartoutsideof the Met.

8. Plaintiff JoelKayeis an artistwho createsexpressivephotographs

andresidesin

the City of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart in Union SquarePark.

9. Plaintiff BryanCloseis an artistwho createsexpressiveart andwho residesin the

City of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart in Union SquarePark.

10. Plaintiff RadosluvGavililovic is an artistwho createsexpressiveart andwho

residesin New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart in Union SquarePark.

11. PlaintiffDinaKalrais an artistwho createsexpressive

etchings,andwho resides

in the City of New York, andwho showsandsellsher expressiveart in Union SquarePark.

12. Plaintiff Victor Spinelliis an artistwho createsexpressivephotographs,

andwho

residesin White Plains,New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart in Union Square

Park.

13. Plaintiff Ted Ronanis an artistwho createsexpressivesculptures,andwho

residesin the City of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveartoutsidethe Met.

nt8249.2
 14. Plaintiff DonnaLee Michasis an artistwho createsexpressivephotographs,
and

who residesin the City of New York, andwho showsandsellsher expressiveart in Union

SquarePark.

15. Plaintiff MichaelMurray is an artistwho createsexpressivephotographs

on

wood,andwho residesin City of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart in

Union SquarePark.

16. Plaintiff BayoIribhogbeis an artistwho createsexpressivepaintings,andwho

residesin the City of New York, andwho showsandsellshis expressiveart outsidethe Met.

17. Plaintiff RobynWohl is an artistwho createsexpressiveprints,andwho residesin

the City of New York, andwho showsandsellsher expressiveart outsidethe Met.

18. Plaintiff Artists Unitedis an unincorporated

associated,
madeup of memberswho

includethe individualplaintiffs in this lawsuit.

19. DefendantParksDepartmentis an agencyof the City maintainingan addressat

TheArsenal,CentralPark,830Fifth Avenue,New York,New York 10021.

20. DefendantAdrian Benepe("Benepe")is beingsuedin his official capacityasthe

Commissionerof the ParksDepartment.

2I. DefendantCity is a municipalcorporationduly incorporatedunderthe laws of the

Stateof New York.

22. Defendant Michael Bloomberg (the "Mayor") is being sued in his official

capacrtyas the Mayor of the City of New York.

Facrunr, BacxcnouNo

23. ThePlaintiffs,otherthanArtistsUnited,arevisualartistswho showandoffer for

saletheir respectiveexpressivematterin oneor moreof the RestrictedParks.

24. Expressivemattervendorsareentitledto First Amendmentprotection.

1t18249.2
 25. As adopted,the Revised Rules severelyrestrict the number and location of

vendors of expressivematter in the RestrictedParks.

26. In pertinent part, the Revised Rules provide:

[E]xpressive matter vendors may only vend expressivematter at the

speciJically designatedspots identffied by the Commissioner in the
sccompanying maps and as marked by a Department decal, medallion, or
other form of marking, on the specific location of the approvedvending
spot, unlessthey are only vending expressivematter without using a cart,
display stand or other device and without occupying a specific location for
longer than necessaryto conduct a transactionand are otherwise in
compliance with Departmentrules. Thesespots shall be allocated upon a
first comerJirstserveDasisexceptas otherwiseprovidedby law and any
expressivematter vendor may only vend expressivematter centered
directly behind the Department decal, medallion, or other form of
marking. Only one expressivematter vendor is authorized to vend
directly behind the Department decal, medallion, or otherform of
marking as indicated by the Departmentdecal, medallion, or other form of
marking and if multiple expressivematter vendors attempt to vend
expressivematter at anyoneDepartment decal, medallion, or other form of
marking andif it cannot be otherwise determined which expressive
matter vendor urrivedJirst, then all such expressive matter vendors at
such spot will be in violation of this section and may be directed to leave
the area of that Department decal, medallion, or other form of marking
immediately. Any such expressivematter vendor failing to leave the area
of the Department decal, medallion, or other form of marking immediately
upon direction as requiredunderthe precedingsentencewill be in
violation of theserules.

56 RCNY $ 1-05(bX2)(emphasesadded).

27. By limiting the numberof "specifically designatedspots,"by prohibiting "spot

sharing" among expressivematter vendors,and by rationing those few spots on a "first come,

first servebasis," the Revised Rules constitute a defacto daily licensing program or lottery.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(FreeSpeech)

28. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegethe allegations 1 throush27 withthe

sameforce and effect as though set forth here at length'

1rt8249.2
 29. On their face and as applied to Plaintiffs, the Revised Rules constitute an

impermissible restraint on constitutionally protected speechunder the First Amendment to the

United StatesConstitution and Article 1, $ 8, of the New York StateConstitution, in that they

require authorization from the Park's Commissionerto engagein such activity and thus

effectively bar Plaintiffs from displaying or selling their art in the RestrictedParks.

30. The free speechrights affected by the Revised Rules are fundamentalrights

guaranteedby the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United Statesand Article 1, $ 8 of

the Constitution of the Stateof New York.

31. The Revised Rules are not narrowly tailored to servea significant govemmental

interest.

32. Whether by intent or effect, the Revised Rules will curtail the Plaintiffs' First

Amendment and Article 1, $ 8 rights.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment)

33. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegethe allegationsin paragraphs1 through 32 with the

sameforce and effect as though set forth here at length.

34. For all of the above-mentionedreasons,there exists an actual, substantialand

immediate controversywithin the Court's jurisdiction, which controversy is the result of

Defendants'conductand which controversycan be redressedby a judicial decisionin favor of

Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court may properly declarePlaintiffs' constitutional and civil rights in

respectof this action.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Equal Protection)

35. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegethe allegationsin paragraphs1 through 32 with the

sameforce and effect as though set forth here at length.

tt18249.2
 36. The Revised Rules will permit a limited number of expressivematter vendors to

exercisetheir First Amendment and Article I, $ 8 rights each day, and will deny to all other

expressivematter vendors the ability to exercisethose samerights on that sameday in a similar

venue.

37. The Revised Rules, therefore,constitute a governmentally-imposedsystemof

disparatetreatment of similarly situatedindividuals, namely expressivematter vendors.

38. On their face and as applied to Plaintiffs, the Revised Rules thus violate Plaintiffs'

constitutional rights of Equal Protection.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Equal Protection)

39. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegethe allegationsin paragraphs1 through 32 with the

sameforce and effect as though set forth here at length.

40. Plaintiffs are membersof a specialclassbecausethey are engagedin First

Amendment protected activities which are fundamentalrights.

4I. The statedpurposeof the Revised Rules is to reduce congestionin the Restricted

Parks.

42. The Revised Rules, however, seekto realizethatpurposeby burdening only

expressivematter vendors to the exclusion of all other vendors utilizing the RestrictedParks.

43. Upon information and belief, the Green Market in Union SquarePark, the

Holiday Markets, corporate-ownedart installations, and special corporateeventscreatemore

dangerand congestionthan all expressivematter vendors combined, but the Revised Rules make

no attempt to reduce and restrict the activities, locations, or numbersof such non-expressive

matter vendors so as to reduce congestionin the RestrictedParks.

1tt8249.2
 44. Similarly, upon information and beliei the City has enteredinto agreementswith

food and beveragevendors,t-shirt, sunglassand sundry non-expressivematter vendorsto sell in

front of the Met, and, although said vendors will also createsignificant congestion,the Revised

Rules make no attempt to reduce and restrict the activities, locations, or numbers of such non-

expressivematter vendors so as to reduce congestionin front of the Met.

45. The Revised Rules, therefore, constitute a governmentally-imposedsystemof

disparatetreatment of similarly situatedindividuals, namely all vendors who sell in the

RestrictedParks.

46. On their face and as applied to Plaintiffs, the Revised Rules thus violate Plaintiffs'

constitutional rights of Equal Protection.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Civil Rights - 42 U.S.C. $ 1983)

47. Plaintiffs repeatand reallegethe allegationsin paragraphs1 through 45 with the

sameforce and effect as though set forth here at length.

48. Defendantsare personswho, under color of law, and as a result of their

promulgation and impending enforcementhave subjectedand will subject Plaintiffs to the

deprivation of their civil rights as guaranteedby the First and FourteenthAmendments of the

United StatesConstitution.

49. Defendantshave engagedand continue to engagein behavior that violates

Plaintiffs' constitutional rights of free speechand equal protection and have thereby irreparably

injured Plaintiffs.

50. Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages,and seekattorneys' fees and costs.

ttt8249.2
 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requestthe following relief:

(a) A declaratoryjudgment that the revision of $$ 1-02 and 1-05(b)of Title 56 of the

Official Compilation of the Rules of the City of New York is unconstitutional under the

Constitution of the United Statesand the Constitution of the Stateof New York, and that

enforcementof thoseresulationswould and doesviolate Plaintiffs' civil riehts under 42 U.S.C.

$ $ 1 9 8 3a n d 1 9 8 8 .

(b) A permanentinjunction enjoining Defendantsand their agencies,officers,

employees,agentsand all personsacting in concert with them from enforcing, by meansof

arrest,threats of arrest,issuanceof summonses,confiscation of materials or any other meansof

enforcement,the Revised Rules.

(c) An award of monetary damagesto Plaintiffs for those compensableinjuries

suffered by Plaintiffs in the above claims as a result of Defendants' enforcementof the Revised

Rules. in an amount to be determined attrial.

(d) attorneys'feespursuantto $ 1988.

An awardof reasonable

(e) Any otherrelief this Courtdeemsjust andproper.

Dated: New York, New York

JuIy7,2010

PHILLPS NIZER LLP

in B. McGrath(KM7613)
Jeffrey L. Shore(IS244l)
AttorneyforPlaintffi
666 Fifth Avenue
New York,New York 10103-0084
(2r2) 977-9700

t11.8249.2