Source: https://www.animallaw.info/case/huntingdon-life-sciences-inc-v-stop-huntingdon-animal-cruelty
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:51:22+00:00

Document:
Animal rights protestors appealed the decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County that permanently enjoined the protestors from engaging in protest activity that constituted a private nuisance (to wit, participating in targeted protest at the home of the plaintiff Mark L. Bibi). This court found that the protestors failed to refute the evidence from the lower court that showed the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction as a matter of law (including evidence of the appellant's federal conviction conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992). While the court did find that the appellant-protestor's incarceration did not render the appeal academic, imposition of the injunction was a reasonable and constitutional restriction on protest activity.
*1 In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from engaging in protest activity which constitutes a private nuisance, (1) the defendants Lauren Gazzola and Kevin Kjonaas, a/k/a Kevin Jonas, appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 6, 2008, and (2) the defendant Lauren Gazzola appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated June 30, 2008, as denied her motion, made jointly with the defendant Kevin Kjonaas, a/k/a Kevin Jonas, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion which was for summary judgment as against her, and permanently enjoined her, inter alia, from engaging in protest activity around the premises of the plaintiff Mark L. Bibi.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the appellant Lauren Gazzola (hereinafter the appellant), made jointly with the defendant Kevin Kjoonas, a/k/a Kevin Jonas, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence of her incarceration did not, by itself, render so much of the complaint as sought a permanent injunction academic or warrant the dismissal of the complaint as to her ( see generally Meccariello v. Meccariello, 46 A.D.3d 640, 642, 847 N.Y.S.2d 618; see also CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862, 552 N.Y.S.2d 918, 552 N.E.2d 166).
The plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for the issuance of a permanent injunction against the appellant based on the evidence of, inter alia, the appellant's participation in a targeted protest at the home of the plaintiff Mark L. Bibi, in conjunction with the evidence of the appellant's federal conviction of crimes including conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (18 USC § 43). In opposition, the appellant failed to submit any evidentiary proof refuting that prima facie showing. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly awarded permanent injunctive relief against the appellant ( see Long Is. Gynecological Servs. v. Murphy, 298 A.D.2d 504, 505, 748 N.Y.S.2d 776; see also Trojan Elec. & Mach. Co. v. Heusinger, 162 A.D.2d 859, 860-861, 557 N.Y.S.2d 756; Parkmed Co. v. Pro-Life Counseling, 91 A.D.2d 551, 552, 457 N.Y.S.2d 27; cf. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Fishman, 57 A.D.3d 455, 455-456, 872 N.Y.S.2d 1; Kurland Cadillac-Oldsmobile v. Cable, 83 A.D.2d 902, 902-903, 442 N.Y.S.2d 146). In addition, the injunction imposed reasonable and constitutionally permissible restrictions on protest activity ( see Parkmed Co. v. Pro-Life Counseling, 91 A.D.2d at 552-553, 457 N.Y.S.2d 27; see also Ansonia Assoc. Ltd. Partnership v. Ansonia Tenants' Coalition, 253 A.D.2d 706, 706-707, 677 N.Y.S.2d 575).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 43
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.