Opinion ID: 789879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The March

Text: 5 It was anticipated that the Shepard rally/vigil on October 19 would be attended by some 200 persons. No permit was obtained ( see Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14), as [i]t was understood that the walk was to be a sidewalk march (Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14), and [n]o permit is required for a `sidewalk march' ( id. ). 6 As it turned out, however, by the end of the evening the rally and march had attracted some 4,000 participants. ( See Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16-17; Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.) Initially, 100 police officers had been assigned to the Shepard demonstration; as the number of participants grew, and overflowed the sidewalks, some 1,500 police officers were mobilized for crowd-control. ( See Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 15, 43; Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16, 43.) After the marchers began to pour down Fifth Avenue, the police erected barricades, diverting the marchers west on 56th Street one block to Avenue of the Americas, then south to 54th Street, and then east one block to Fifth Avenue where they again were allowed to proceed south. 7 According to defendants, who presented a videotape of the event to support their assertions, uniformed police officers made announcements to the crowd by use of bullhorn loud speakers. Those announcements included statements that the participants were required to remain on the sidewalks and were not allowed to walk on or remain in the roadway; that if the participants remained on the sidewalks they would be escorted to Madison Square Park; and that persons who remained in the roadway would be arrested. ( See Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 19-24.) In response to these Rule 56.1 assertions, plaintiffs stated only that several plaintiffs did not hear the announcements that they should stay on the sidewalk and would be arrested if they failed to do so. ( See Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 19-24.) 8 Supported by additional citations to the videotape, defendants asserted that despite the police announcements, a large group of participants entered the roadway at Fifth Avenue and 59th Street, locked arms, and obstructed traffic; that demonstrators were encouraging each other to enter the roadway; that one demonstrator with a bullhorn told other participants, if you are willing to take arrests, please move into the street; that many individuals then sat down in the roadway; that demonstrators in the street chanted, WHO'S STREET? OUR STREET! and TAKE THE STREETS!; that at that time, persons who remained in the roadway were arrested; and that during the time that police officers were attempting to arrest persons who initially went into the roadway, the remaining thousands of demonstrators flooded the street and proceeded to march down Fifth Avenue. (Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 25-31.) In response to these assertions, plaintiffs stated that none of the plaintiffs engaged in this conduct, but they did not dispute that such conduct occurred as described. ( See Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 25-31.) 9 The parties disputed whether there was vehicular traffic on Fifth Avenue south of 59th Street. Defendants asserted that the crowds walking in the roadway interfered with vehicular traffic, caused significant safety hazards to the occupants of numerous vehicles, including cars, trucks, and public buses, and caused significant delays and disruptions to the flow of traffic in and around midtown Manhattan. ( See Defendants' 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33.) Plaintiffs asserted that there was no vehicular traffic on Fifth Avenue south of 59th Street because Fifth Avenue had been blocked by the police at 59th Street. ( See Plaintiffs' Opp. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33.)