UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------X

ROBERT LEDERMAN and JACK NESBITT,

SUMMONS WITH
Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-against-

FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE, INC., Docket No.:

Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------------X

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

TO THE DEFENDANT:

FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE, INC.,

c/o Mario Palumbo as the Registered Agent,
136 West 16th Street, #1RW
New York, NY 10011

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to file with the Clerk of this Court and
serve upon Plaintiffs’ Attorney:

MILNER LAW OFFICE, PLLC

8302A Broadway, Third Floor Suite
Elmhurst, NY 11373
Attention: Julie Milner, Esquire

an answer to the verified complaint herewith served upon you, within 21 days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be
taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

____________________________________ ______________________________
CLERK DATE

____________________________________
BY DEPUTY CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X

ROBERT LEDERMAN and JACK NESBITT,

Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

-against-

FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE, INC., Docket No.: 10cv8713

Defendant.
JURY DEMANDED
----------------------------------------------------------------X

Robert Lederman and Jack Nesbitt, by and through their attorneys, MILNER LAW

OFFICE, PLLC, respectfully allege upon personal knowledge as to their own acts and status and

upon information and belief as to all other matters:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights action in which the named Defendant violated the Plaintiffs’

liberty interests guaranteed by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United

States, enforceable by 42 USC §1983, and also guaranteed by Article 1 §12 of the New York

State Constitution; violation of plaintiffs’ rights to free speech, expression, assembly and

association under the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States,
enforceable by 42 USC § 1983, and also guaranteed by Article 1, §§8 and 9 of the New York

State Constitution; violation of plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the

14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, enforceable by 42 USC §1983, and

also guaranteed by Article 1 §11 of the New York State Constitution; freedom from

unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,

enforceable by 42 USC §1983, and also guaranteed by Article 1 §12 of the New York State

Constitution.
 2. Plaintiffs also seek redress in the form of compensatory and punitive damages for the

torts of false arrest; false imprisonment; and abuse of process arising out of the same claim,

along with declaratory and injunctive relief in equity.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

3. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Claim with this defendant as well as the City of New York

well before the 90 day deadline. The City settled all claims as to themselves, but expressly

exempted Friends of the High Line from the settlement.

JURISDICTION
4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal

question), 1343 (civil rights), 1367 (supplemental), 2201 and 2202 (declaratory judgment), 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 (civil rights).

VENUE
5. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1-2).

PARTIES
6. Plaintiff ROBERT LEDERMAN (hereinafter “LEDERMAN”) is a visual artist

residing at ..........................., and a well known First Amendment

activist who successfully challenged former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s restrictive policies

against artists during his “quality of life” campaign. Lederman is the founder and president of

A.R.T.I.S.T. (Artists’ Resistance to Illegal State Tactics).

7. Plaintiff JACK NESBITT (hereinafter “NESBITT”) is a visual artist residing at............

, and is also a First Amendment activist who makes and

sells political buttons along with his original art. Nesbitt is a 69 year old military veteran. He is a

founding member of A.R.T.I.S.T.

 8. Defendant FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE, INC. (hereinafter “FRIENDS”) is a

nonprofit organization and private partner to the New York City Department of Parks &

Recreation that built and maintains the High Line, a public park on Manhattan’s West Side.

Friends raised over $44 million for the capital campaign for the High Line; funded over 70% of

its annual budget; provides staffing for its maintenance; and oversees its operations and public

programming.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Robert Lederman and Jack Nesbitt are visual artists who legally sell their artistic

creations in New York City in full compliance with all laws, regulations, and rules.

10. Despite such compliance, Lederman and Nesbitt have been falsely arrested on 43 and

26 occasions, respectively, for exercising their First Amendment freedom of speech by legally

selling their art, and neither have ever been convicted of any of the underlying offenses.

11. Lederman and Nesbitt were Plaintiffs in the federal suit Lederman et al. v. Giuliani

(2001) in which this Court held the permit requirement for visual artists to sell their art was

unconstitutional and thus permanently enjoined the City of New York and its employees and

agencies from enforcing the permit requirement for visual artists.

12. It is well established in the case law that artists do not need a permit or license to sell

their work in the public fora, including the City Parks.

13. Despite this holding and permanent injunction, employees and/or agents of the

Friends of the High Line attempted to enforce a non-existent permit requirement at that park.

14. On Saturday November 21, 2009, Plaintiff Lederman set up a small stand in High

Line Park near 14th street and 10th avenue for the purpose of displaying and selling his art. The

cardboard stand was in compliance with all applicable City and park regulations; it was one foot

deep by 8 feet long and 5 feet tall, smaller than the dimensions permitted.

15. Furthermore, Mr. Lederman’s display in no way blocked any walk way or otherwise
caused any impediment to the free flow of pedestrian traffic.
 16. Within the first few minutes of Lederman’s arrival at the park, eight High Line

employees and /or agents began aggressively threatening and harassing him.

17. These eight employees and/or agents threatened to have Lederman arrested and each

of them told him it was illegal for him to photograph them.

18. Each of the eight falsely accused Lederman of harassing them because he was

photographing their activities concerning him.

19. One female employee and/or agent, who upon information and belief was acting in a

supervisory capacity, repeatedly refused to identify herself and failed to wear an identification

badge.

20. Furthermore, this female employee and/or agent repeatedly made false statements to

Lederman, who was filming the incident, that it was illegal for him to do so and that such filming

constituted harassment of her and “her employees.” The employees she referenced were wearing

clothes with the High Line logo consisting of two green train tracks.

21. Around 3 PM, a Park Enforcement Patrol (PEP) Officer Joseph, summoned by the

employees and/or agents of the Friends of the Highline, approached Lederman and demanded to

see his permit. When Lederman tried to explain that he had a legal right to sell art without a

permit the PEP officer wrote up summonses and ordered him to leave.

22. At all times relevant, Officer Joseph was accompanied by a female Sergeant who

observed and supervised his activities regarding Lederman.

23. Mr. Lederman repeatedly requested the employees and/or agents, and the PEP officer

to call Commissioner Benepe, Park’s counsel Alessandro Olivieri, Director of PEP Ray Brown,

or the Deputy Commissioner of Enforcement Kevin Jeffrey to clarify that Lederman did not need

a permit to sell his art there.

24. When Lederman explained again that he was there legally, and pointed out to his

prominent display of the New York Times and Post articles reporting the legal victories that
artists have won allowing them to sell without a permit, the PEP officer forcefully grabbed his
left wrist and twisted his arm, even though Lederman calmly stated he was not resisting arrest

and that excessive force was not necessary.

25.The officer radioed for back-up and two more PEP vehicles arrived while Lederman

was aggressively handcuffed and shoved into the elevator.

26. At all times while the PEP officer was present, there were at least three employees

and or agents from the Friends of the Highline observing and supervising the activities of the

PEP officer.

27. Mr. Lederman was issued five summonses, two of which were criminal charges of

disorderly conduct and failure to comply with directions of an officer and 3 non-criminal

including vending without a park permit, failure to have his display comply with required permit

and unauthorized vending.

28. Mr. Lederman was taken to the 6th Precinct where the desk sergeant advised the PEP

officer that Lederman did not need a permit to sell his art. The PEP officer ignored the sergeant.

Lederman was released at 6:30 PM after being held in a cell for three hours.

29. On the cold morning of Sunday, December 6, around 10 AM, Robert Lederman

returned one week after his false arrest, accompanied by another visual artist, Jack Nesbitt.

30. Lederman and Nesbitt arrived at High Line Park and set up their regulation-compliant

displays that were not blocking any pathways or otherwise impeding pedestrian traffic. The

display was set up in a section that was about 30 feet across.

31. Within three or four minutes, Inspector Reeves approached the plaintiffs. Lederman

said “I’m back” and Inspector Reeves replied, “Yes. They told me you would be. She told me, I

forgot the woman’s name…she told me last week.”

32. Inspector Reeves, who has a long history with Lederman, asked them both to leave

and informed them that if they did not comply they would be issued one summons for the

activity and then arrested.

33. Mr. Lederman politely declined to leave and Inspector Reeves left the scene.
 34. About 40 minutes after Inspector Reeves departure, first Lederman then Nesbitt were

arrested by five PEP officers who were summoned by employees and/or agents of the Friends of

the High Line and issued four summonses and two criminal charges for disorderly conduct and

failure to comply. The time written on the summonses was 12:30 PM.

35. About an hour later, a reporter from the Villager asked two of the arresting PEP

officers as they were leaving the 6th Precinct if Plaintiffs were arrested for selling art without a

permit and the PEP officers responded “yes.” The Villager followed up by stating they believed

it was legal to sell art without a permit and one of the officers said “we are just doing what we

are told, don’t blame me.”

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983: First Amendment Freedom of Speech and Assembly)
(Article 1, §§8 and 9 of the New York State Constitution)

36. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained

in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

37. Defendant, acting under color of state law, arrested Plaintiffs and barred them from

displaying and selling their visual art, which deprived them of their freedom of speech and

freedom to assemble.

38. By their conduct and actions, Defendant has violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the

First Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable by 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Article

1, §§8 and 9 of the New York State Constitution.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983: Fourth Amendment False Arrest)
(Article 1 §12 of the New York State Constitution)

39. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained

in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

 40. Defendant, acting under color of state law, without any legitimate justification

arrested the plaintiffs; they were put in a jail cell, not free to leave, and their liberty was

restricted and restrained.

41. In doing so Defendant violated the Plaintiffs’ right under the Fourth Amendment to

the United States Constitution , enforceable by 42 U.S.C. §1983, Article 1, §12 of the New York

State Constitution.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983: Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection)
(Article 1 §11 of the New York State Constitution)

42. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained

in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

43. Defendants, acting under color of state law, discriminated against plaintiffs for

exercising their First Amendment rights, where other vendors engaging in strictly commercial

activity were given preferential treatment and allowed to ply their trade.

44. In doing so, Defendants have violated the plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable by 42 USC §1983, and Article 1 §11

of the New York State Constitution.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983: First Amendment Freedom of Association)

45. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained

in each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

46. Upon information and belief, and because Robert Lederman was told that he was

ordered to be arrested “on sight” should he return to the High Line, the defendant has acted in

concert with the City, Parks Department, and possibly others to deprive plaintiffs, and in

particular Robert Lederman, of their civil rights.

 47. Jack Nesbitt was arrested without just cause merely because of his association with

Lederman and A.R.T.I.S.T. His arrest was designed to chill the expressive activities of

A.R.T.I.S.T. as well as anyone else who may associate with Robert Lederman.

48. Defendant’s violation of plaintiff’s right to freely associate caused damages in an

amount to be assessed by a jury.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(False Arrest)
49. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained in each

of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

50. Defendants caused plaintiffs to be arrested.

51. Defendants intended to confine plaintiffs, who were conscious of the confinement,

did not consent to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.

52. Because of this false arrest, plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be determined

by a jury.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(False Imprisonment)

53. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained in each

of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

54. Defendants intended to confine plaintiffs, who were conscious of the confinement,

did not consent to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.

55. Despite being informed by the NYPD desk sergeant that plaintiffs had not broken the

law, the PEP officer, as an agent of Friends of the High Line, continued to falsely imprison the

plaintiffs.

56. Because of this false imprisonment, plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be

determined by a jury.
 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Abuse of Process)

57. Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate and re-allege each and every allegation as contained in each

of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

58. Defendant issued or caused to issue summonses to the plaintiffs.

59. Defendant intended to harm plaintiffs without excuse or justification.

60. Defendant’s sole purpose in issuing or causing to issue these summonses was to

discourage plaintiffs from returning to the High Line, a public park where plaintiffs’ had every

right to be.

61. Defendant abused process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective.

62. Because of this abuse of process, plaintiffs were damaged in an amount to be

determined by a jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:

(a) A declaratory judgment that the Friends of the High Line is so intertwined with the City

of New York that it is an arm of the state for purposes of municipal liability.

(b) A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its agencies, officers, employees, agents

and all persons acting in concert with them from preventing, by means of arrest, threats of arrest,

issuance of summonses, confiscation of materials or any other means of enforcement, the

plaintiffs and others similarly situated from engaging in their First Amendment rights, including

but not limited to, displaying and selling their art.

(c) An award of monetary damages, including punitive damages, to Plaintiffs for those

compensable injuries suffered by Plaintiffs in the above claims as a result of Defendant’s

intentional wrongful acts, to be determined by the jury, but in no case less than $1,000,000 for

each plaintiff.
(d) An award of monetary damages to Plaintiffs for those compensable injuries suffered by

Plaintiffs in the above claims as a result of Defendant’s negligent acts, to be determined by the

jury, but in no case less than $1,000,000 for each plaintiff.

(e) An award of monetary damages to Plaintiffs for those compensable injuries suffered by

Plaintiffs in the above claims as a result of Defendant’s constitutional torts, to be determined by

the jury, but in no case less than $1,000,000 for each violation, to each plaintiff.

(f) An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to §1988.

(g) An award of costs, disbursements, and any other relief to which this honorable Court

deems just and proper.

Dated: Queens, New York

November 18, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

_____/s/ Julie Milner____

JULIE MILNER
(JM1227)

MILNER LAW OFFICES, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8302A Broadway, 3rd Floor Suite
Elmhurst, NY 11373
(718) 766-5242