Opinion ID: 776902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority for City Policy

Text: 22 At the outset, we note our agreement with the district court's determination that the City had the authority to implement a policy banning sound amplification in City Hall Plaza. Characterizing the issue of authority as a threshold question, Housing Works challenges this determination on appeal as it did in the district court. In its brief, Housing Works argues that the policy is without lawful basis and is nothing more than a pronouncement of the Office of the Corporation Counsel. We reject this argument and find an adequate legal basis for the sound amplification policy. 23 First, the new comprehensive rules promulgated to govern demonstrations and similar forms of expressive conduct in City Hall Plaza, 55 R.C.N.Y. § 10-01-10, make no provision for the use of sound amplification equipment. The City interprets this omission in a complete regulatory scheme as authority for the sound amplification ban in the plaza area. We defer to the City's construction of a regulation it is charged with administering. Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 206, 210, 6 L.Ed. 603 (1827) (stating that construction by those appointed to carry out provisions of law is entitled to very great respect). Second, authority for the City's policy can be found in 55 R.C.N.Y. § 10-08, which states that [n]othing in these provisions shall restrict the power and authority of the Police Department to preserve the public peace and safety in the vicinity of City Hall. 24 Finally, section 10-108 of the New York City Administrative Code, which deals generally with the issuance of permits and the administration of regulations respecting the use of sound devices, prohibits the police commissioner from issuing a permit whenever he determines that physical conditions are such that the use of the device would deprive the public of the right to the safe, comfortable, convenient and peaceful enjoyment of any ... public ... place. N.Y.C.Code § 10-108(g)(3). The Corporation Counsel, as representative of the City, communicated the City's policy to Housing Works in the October 10, 2000 letter from Mr. Connolly. The policy in this case, therefore, did not originate in a pronouncement by the Corporation Counsel as did the policy at issue in City of New York v. American Sch. Publ'ns, Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 576, 516 N.Y.S.2d 616, 509 N.E.2d 311 (1987), but instead finds its basis in established provisions of the New York City Administrative Code and Rules.