Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wandering Dago Reply to State

Wandering Dago Reply to State

Ratings: (0)|Views: 131|Likes:
Published by David Lombardo
Wandering Dago responds to the state's defense, in its lawsuit
Wandering Dago responds to the state's defense, in its lawsuit

More info:

Published by: David Lombardo on Sep 17, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/21/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WANDERING DAGO INC.,Plaintiff,v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF GENERALSERVICES, ROANN M. DESTITO, JOSEPH J.RABITO, WILLIAM F. BRUSO, JR., AARONWALTERS, NEW YORK RACINGASSOCIATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER K. KAY,STEPHEN TRAVERS, JOHN DOES 1-5, and THESTATE OF NEW YORK,Defendants.Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT 
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORTOF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Dated: September 16, 2013
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
George F. Carpinello (Bar No. 103750)30 South Pearl StreetAlbany, NY 12207Ph: (518) 434-0600
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 35 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 32
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ iiPreliminary Statement .................................................................................................................... 1I. Defendants Bear the Burden of Justifying Their Censorshipof Plaintiff’s Speech ............................................................................................... 2II. Plaintiff Has Established Irreparable Injury .......................................................... 3III. The State Defendants Cannot Justify Their Conduct As “Proprietary”and Occurring In a Non-Public Forum .................................................................. 8A. The Plaza Is a Public Forum ...................................................................... 8B. The State Defendants Have No Clearly Articulated PolicyFor Use of the Plaza ................................................................................. 13C. The State Defendants Cannot Meet the
Central
 
 Hudson
Test ................. 14IV. The Nature of the Saratoga Race Course Is Irrelevant Because theExclusion Was Done at the Direction of State Officials Without Regard to Any Policy Concerning Use of the Property ................................................... 16V. Defendants’
 Ad Hoc
Exclusion of Plaintiff Was theResult of Unconstitutional, Unbridled Discretion ............................................... 19VI. Defendants Have Engaged In Viewpoint Discrimination .................................... 23Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 25
Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 35 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 32
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 Abish v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Milwaukee
,924 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1991)........................................................................................................ 7
 Abortion Rights and Against Sterilization Abuse v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.
,584 F. Supp. 985 (W.D.N.Y. 1984) ................................................................................ 4, 14, 21
 Am. Civil Liberties of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas
,333 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 11
 American Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Service
,766 F.2d 715 (2d Cir. 1985)........................................................................................................ 4
 Ark. Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes
,523 U.S. 666 (1998) .............................................................................................................. 8, 12
 Aubrey v. City of Cincinnati
,815 F. Supp. 1100 (S.D.Oh. 1993) ........................................................................................... 21
 Bad Frog Brewery Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority
,134 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1998)........................................................................................................ 15
 Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox
,492 U.S. 469 (1989) .................................................................................................................... 3
 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp.
,463 U.S. 60 (1983) ...................................................................................................................... 3
 Borey v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
,934 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................... 7
 Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of New York 
,331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003)........................................................................................................ 4
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.
,447 U.S. 557 (1980) .............................................................................................................. 2, 15
Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Martinez
,829 F. Supp. 2d 47 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) ............................................................................ 21, 23, 24
Christ’s Bride Ministries, Inc. v. Se. Penn. Transp. Auth
.,148 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1998)................................................................................................ 14, 24
Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 35 Filed 09/16/13 Page 3 of 32

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->