Opinion ID: 795700
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requests for Assistance

Text: 54 Second, Field Day argues that the last clause of the Mass Gathering Law, providing that in his review of such applications, as well as in carrying out his other duties and functions in connection with such a gathering, a permit issuing official may request and shall receive from all public officers, departments and agencies of the state and its political subdivisions such cooperation and assistance as may be necessary and proper, N.Y. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o), unconstitutionally permits such an official to refuse to request assistance, even where such assistance is both necessary and proper. As an example, Field Day posits that an official may capriciously demand[ ] that uniformed police officers provide security for the festival but then refuse[ ] to provide those officers. The State counters that Field Day badly misunderstand[s] the provision because the Mass Gathering Law does not provide for assistance to the speaker but, instead, to the permit-issuing official. According to the State, such assistance is limited to those duties of the permitting official — reviewing applications, granting permits, and revoking permits — established by the Sanitary Code. See N.Y. Comp. R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 7-1.40. The State argues that the provision of security staff is expressly the duty of the mass gathering applicant. See N.Y. Comp. R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 7-1.40(e) (setting forth the [a]dditional duties of a permittee for a mass gathering, and requiring that [a] maintenance and internal security staff acceptable to the permit-issuing official shall be provided). The State also argues that New York law permits this Court to read permissive words as mandatory if such construction furthers legislative intent. See N.Y. STAT. § 171 cmt. 4 55 The answer to Field Day's challenge comes in two parts. First, in accordance with the comments to N.Y. STAT. § 171 and this Court's duty to read the statute as constitutional if possible, the most reasonable reading of the assistance provision is that a request for assistance must be made if the official determines that such assistance is necessary and proper. Second, because neither the Mass Gathering Law nor the Sanitary Code require a permitting official to provide assistance to an applicant by, for example, providing police officers as security personnel, it is not true that the Mass Gathering Law and Sanitary Code permits an official to choose the events of favored speakers or favored speech that will receive public assistance or veto events by withholding assistance from disfavored speech or speakers. 56 In relation to this last point, we note once again that a finding of facial constitutionality does not foreclose as-applied challenges. In Chicago Park District the Supreme Court was presented with an ordinance which provided grounds on which the Park District may deny a permit rather than must deny a permit. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. at 324, 122 S.Ct. 775. The plaintiffs argued that this provision allow[ed] the Park District to waive the permit requirements for some favored speakers, while insisting upon them for others. Id. The Supreme Court observed that such construction was certainly not the intent of the ordinance, which the Park District has reasonably interpreted to permit overlooking only those inadequacies that, under the circumstances, do no harm to the policies furthered by the application requirements. Id. at 324-25, 122 S.Ct. 775. The Supreme Court went on to explain that [g]ranting waivers to favored speakers (or, more precisely, denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional, but we think that this abuse must be dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears, rather than by insisting upon a degree of rigidity that is found in few legal arrangements. Id. at 325, 122 S.Ct. 775. Similarly, granting public assistance to favored speakers or favored speech in the manner that Field Day complains of would be unconstitutional. Such situations must be dealt with in as-applied challenges if and when they arise.