Opinion ID: 795700
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandatory Issuance of Permits

Text: 49 First, Field Day argues that the Mass Gathering Law is unconstitutional because it `authorizes' but does not require the issuance of a mass gathering permit to an applicant who has satisfied all of the permit requirements. Field Day also draws on the 1970 press release announcing the passage of the Mass Gathering Law, which stated that permits may be issued `when it appears that ... such gathering [can be] held without hazard to public health or safety.' (emphasis added). 50 The District Court determined that, although the Mass Gathering Law nowhere explicitly states that once an acceptable permit application is submitted, it must be approved, New York law generally provides that `mandatory words may be interpreted in a merely permissive sense or vice versa,' (quoting McKinney's Statutes § 171 cmt.) (footnotes omitted), and further determined that, to the extent the Mass Gathering Law was permissive and may be applied to favor certain speakers over others, a more reasonable approach than striking the entire law from the outset is to deal with such a pattern of abuse when it happens (citing Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. at 324-25, 122 S.Ct. 775). 51 As with the parties' disagreement about the meaning of appears, the resolution of this issue is rendered more difficult than it should be by the shortcomings of the Sanitary Code. The word authorize appears in the first clause of the Mass Gathering Law and merely qualifies what the Sanitary Code may do — in this case, authorize officers to issue a permit. See N.Y. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o). If the Sanitary Code explicitly addressed a public official's duty to issue a mass gathering permit this would be a non-issue. The Sanitary Code, however, says nothing about a public official's duty, mandatory or discretionary, to issue (or deny) a permit. The Sanitary Code makes clear that no mass gathering may be held without a permit, provides the form and schedule for applying for a permit, dictates what additional information must be submitted with the application, and sets forth the conditions under which a mass gathering permit may be revoked — but nowhere does the Sanitary Code provide that a permit shall (or may) or shall not (or may not) be issued or under what circumstances. See N.Y. Comp. R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 7-1.40(a), (b), and (d). 52 As previously noted, this Court must construe statutes, where necessary and possible, to avoid serious constitutional issues. See, e.g., Empire HealthChoice Assur., 396 F.3d at 144-45. Were the Mass Gathering Law and Sanitary Code read to authorize an official to deny a mass gathering permit even where all statutory and regulatory requirements had been met and no unreasonable danger to life or health was present, the statutory/regulatory scheme would be of more than doubtful constitutional validity. See, e.g., City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 770, 108 S.Ct. 2138 (A presumption that an official will act in good faith and adhere to standards absent from the regulation's face is undermined when the official is granted unbridled discretion); Dillon v. Municipal Court, 4 Cal.3d 860, 94 Cal.Rptr. 777, 484 P.2d 945, 952 (1971) (The Seaside ordinance is not only devoid of all standards but, to make matters worse, contains no guarantee that a permit will issue even if the application meets all of the five conditions of the section.). Although the Supreme Court has stated that it  will not write nonbinding limits into a silent state statute, City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 770, 108 S.Ct. 2138, the Court has also stated that limits may be explicitly provided by textual incorporation, binding judicial or administrative construction, or well-established practice. Id. 53 Here, although there is no specific language requiring the issuance of permits in the Mass Gathering Law and Sanitary Code, New York law does generally require that licenses be issued if an applicant satisfies all statutory and regulatory requirements. See Bologno v. O'Connell, 7 N.Y.2d 155, 158 (N.Y. 1959), 196 N.Y.S.2d 90, 164 N.E.2d 389 (Refusal to issue a license would, of course, be arbitrary and in excess of reasonable discretion if based solely upon a ground which the Commissioner may not consider.); Picone v. Comm'r of Licenses of New York City, 241 N.Y. 157, 161 (N.Y. 1925), 149 N.E. 336 (If an applicant for a license can show that he is a fit and proper person to engage in a licensed business under the provisions of the licensing statute, the licensing officer may not arbitrarily impose limitations not contained in the statute upon his right to do business.). We read the Mass Gathering Law and Sanitary Code as bound by this construction and interpret the permissive word authorize as mandatory. Accordingly, neither the Mass Gathering Law nor the Sanitary Code allows an official to deny a permit to an applicant who has otherwise satisfied the strictures of the statutory and regulatory requirements.