## Facts

- Central Park Sightseeing, LLC operated horse-drawn carriage rides picking up and dropping off customers on streets and sidewalks near Central Park South.
- New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets, Inc. and individual activists regularly protested the carriage industry at or near carriage stands and routes.
- The operator presented evidence that certain protest activity included yelling obscenities, threatening or intimidating drivers and riders, blocking customers from boarding, and obstructing or chasing carriages.
- The operator also alleged protestors spooked horses and caused passengers to exit carriages after rides began, creating safety risks on heavily trafficked streets.
- The operator sued for public nuisance and sought a preliminary injunction regulating protest conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the operator showed a likelihood of success on a public-nuisance theory, including a “special injury” different in kind from harm to the general public.
2. Whether the injunction was a permissible, content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction serving significant governmental interests while leaving open alternative channels for speech.
3. Whether parts of the injunction were impermissibly broad or unclear, including binding “anyone” with notice and imposing an unworkable moving buffer around riders.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the preliminary injunction in principle but modified it and, as modified, affirmed.
- The court held the operator showed a likelihood of success on public nuisance based on evidence of obstruction, interference with traffic flow, and safety risks involving horses in crowded public streets.
- The court held the operator demonstrated special injury because the protests targeted the operator’s customers and operations, causing business disruption beyond ordinary public inconvenience.
- The court held the injunction was content neutral because it regulated dangerous and obstructive conduct rather than the anti-carriage message.
- The court narrowed the persons bound by the injunction to the named defendants and those acting in concert with them.
- The court replaced an unclear moving buffer concept with a clearer restriction: a knowing approach within nine feet of persons in loading/unloading areas for proscribed conduct, while leaving protestors free to communicate outside the restricted conduct.

## Legal Principles

- In a traditional public forum, content-neutral time, place, and manner limits are valid if they are narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
- Public safety and maintaining the safe flow of traffic on public streets are significant governmental interests supporting limits on obstructive or dangerous protest conduct.
- A private plaintiff seeking to enjoin a public nuisance must show a special injury different in kind, not merely degree, from that suffered by the public.
- Injunctions affecting expressive activity must be specific and no broader than necessary; overinclusive coverage of nonparties and unclear buffer-zone restrictions may be narrowed to avoid excessive burdens on speech.

## Conclusion

The court upheld injunctive relief against protest conduct that obstructed carriage operations and created street-safety risks, but modified the order to avoid overbreadth by limiting who was bound and clarifying a workable nine-foot approach restriction in carriage loading/unloading areas while preserving meaningful avenues for protest speech.


Cent. Park Sightseeing, LLC v. New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets, Inc., 157 A.D.3d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2017)