Central Park Sightseeing, LLC v. New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
66 N.Y.S.3d 477 (2017)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Central Park Sightseeing, LLC (CPS) (plaintiff) operated horse-drawn carriages in and around New York City’s Central Park. New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets, Inc. (the protestors) (defendant), an animal-rights group, protested against the horse-and-carriage industry. The protests took place in areas where carriages picked up passengers waiting in lines, including along public roads and sidewalks. CPS brought several causes of action against the protestors and requested a preliminary injunction. CPS presented evidence that the protestors had threatened, intimidated, and yelled obscenities at drivers, passengers, and potential passengers. The protestors also blocked customers from boarding carriages, impeded the progress of carriages, spooked the horses, and caused passengers to get out of carriages after rides had started. The trial court enjoined the protestors and any other individual who became aware of the court’s order from physically blocking carriages, drivers, or passengers; physically touching people or horses; shouting at drivers, passengers, or horses from a distance of less than nine feet; handing literature to people sitting in carriages; and encouraging or helping others to engage in the prohibited behaviors. The trial court’s order allowed the protestors to picket, hand out literature, hold signs, and raise their voices if their actions did not violate the terms of the injunction. The protestors appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Manzanet-Daniels, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.