Based on the evidence, even a judge whatever his predisposition would have had a hard time ruling in favor of the City in this case, while a jury had the freedom to ignore the law and the evidence and decide the case based on emotion. Anyone who has attended A.R.T.I.S.T. demonstrations knows that before we start a protest I ask my fellow artist-demonstrators not to block pedestrian or vehicular traffic and not to interfere with the police in any way when they are making an arrest or are confiscating art. Lederman challenges these arrests on the basis that they were not supported by probable cause. He further alleges that the police arrested him because he protested the arrest of artists purportedly for violating an ordinance, later declared unconstitutional by the Second Circuit, prohibiting artists from selling their artwork on the street without a vendor's license. Lederman asserts several causes of action, including civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Defendants move for partial summary judgment.
Because genuine issues of material fact exist for trial, defendants' motion is denied. Lederman has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to whether the City had an informal policy to deny him and other artists their constitutional rights. The record contains evidence that policymakers, including the Mayor, the Police Commissioner, and the District Attorney, were pressured by the SoHo community and others to rid their streets of unlicensed vendors, including unlicensed artists and Lederman in particular, and that this pressure was relayed to the First Precinct. Further, plaintiff has presented evidence that certain police officers knew and disliked him because of his advocacy activities. Moreover, Lederman was thrice arrested and each time the charges were dismissed.