Scribd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WANDERING DAGO INC. Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF GENERAL SERVICES, ROANN M. DESTITO, JOSEPH J. RABITO, WILLIAM F. BRUSO, JR., AARON WALTERS, NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., CHRISTOPHER K. KAY, STEPHEN TRAVERS, JOHN DOES 1–5, and THE STATE OF NEW YORK Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dated: August 27, 2013

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

George F. Carpinello (Bar No. 103750) Michael Hawrylchak 30 South Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Ph: (518) 434-0600

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:13-cv-01053-MAD-RFT Document 4-1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 27

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii Preliminary Statement ..................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................... 3 I. Wandering Dago Was Denied Access to the Empire State Plaza Outdoor Summer Food Program ............................................................................. 3 II. Wandering Dago Was Expelled From Saratoga Race Course ................................ 6 III. Wandering Dago Has Attempted to Find Alternate Locations and Events ............ 8 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 8 I. Wandering Dago Will Be Irreparably Harmed Absent a Preliminary Injunction ................................................................................................................ 9 II. Wandering Dago Is Likely to Succeed on the Merits ............................................. 9 A. Wandering Dago’s Free Speech Rights Under the First Amendment and Article I, § 8 Have Been Violated ...................................................... 10 1. Plaintiff’s Speech Is Not Misleading or Unlawful ........................ 10 2. Defendants Cannot Assert a Legitimate Government Interest ..... 11 3. Defendants’ Ban Does Not Directly Advance Any Government Interests .................................................................... 14 4. Any Purported Regulatory Justification For Defendants’ Actions Is Unconstitutionally Vague ............................................ 15 B. Wandering Dago Has Been Denied the Equal Protection of the Laws Guaranteed By the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, § 11 ............... 17 III. Wandering Dago Has Demonstrated Serious Questions Going to the Merits of Its Claims and That the Balance of Hardships Tips Decidedly In Its Favor .... 18 IV. A Preliminary Injunction Allowing Wandering Dago to Operate at the ESP and Return to Saratoga Race Course As a Vendor Would Be In the Public Interest................................................................................................................... 19 V. The Court Should Not Require a Bond ................................................................. 20 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 22


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Alvarez v. Hayward

, 2006 WL 2023002 (N.D.N.Y. July 18, 2006) .......................................................................... 11

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union

, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) ............................................................................................................ 11, 16

Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

, 134 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1998)........................................................................................ 9, 10, 14, 15

Bery v. City of New York

, 97 F.3d 689 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................... 9

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp.

, 463 U.S. 60 (1983) .............................................................................................................. 11, 12

Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of City of N.Y.

, 331 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2003).................................................................................................. 9, 18

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission

, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 10

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co.

, 486 U.S. 750 (1988) .................................................................................................................. 16

Cohen v. California

, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) .............................................................................................................. 11, 14

Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Stuart

, 85 F.3d 975 (2d Cir. 1996)........................................................................................................ 20

Edenfield v. Fane

, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 14

Elrod v. Burns

, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................................................... 9

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement

, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) .................................................................................................................. 15

Garcia v. New York Racing Association, Inc.

, 2011 WL 3841524 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011) ......................................................................... 11

Hornell Brewing Co., Inc. v. Brady

, 819 F. Supp. 1227 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) ................................................................................... 12, 13
