Parkmed Co. v. Pro-Life Counselling, Inc., PRO-LIFE

• Decision Date: 16 December 1982
• Docket Number: PRO-LIFE
• Parties: PARKMED COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, and Sherman Cohen et al., etc., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.COUNSELLING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 27

457 N.Y.S.2d 27

91 A.D.2d 551

PARKMED COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, and Sherman Cohen et al., etc., Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PRO-LIFE COUNSELLING, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Dec. 16, 1982.

C.D. Bock, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.

C.D. Bock, New York City, for intervenors-plaintiffs-respondents.

M.E. Sheehan, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before SANDLER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSS, CARRO and KASSAL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 18, 1981, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff-respondent Parkmed Company's ("Parkmed") motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously modified, 110 Misc.2d 369, 442 N.Y.S.2d 396, without costs, on the law and the facts, to delete therefrom the first operative paragraph and to add to the third paragraph thereof the words "by shouting, screaming, engaging in physical and verbal threats, assault, abuse, harassment, intimidation and property damage."

Parkmed operates a clinic for abortions and related health care services on the twelfth floor of 475 Park Avenue South, a thirty-four story office building with an open plaza in front and steps leading down from the plaza to the sidewalk. While the plaza is private property, the intervenor-plaintiffs-respondents (landlords) had built it pursuant to a zoning ordinance requiring them to keep it accessible to the public. Defendant-appellant Pro-Life Counselling, Inc. ("Pro-Life"), an anti-abortion organization, commenced demonstrations on Saturdays against Parkmed, which subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from interfering with its operation. The parties submitted affidavits on the one hand to the effect that defendant had picketed, demonstrated and harassed Parkmed patients and employees on the plaza and the steps in an attempt to disrupt Parkmed's activities, including physical and verbal threats, assault, abuse, harassment, intimidation and property damage, or, on the other hand, that all picketing and demonstrating was done in a quiet and peaceful manner, with defendants attempting to hand out literature and quietly reason with the patients. A temporary restraining order was granted, later followed by the instant order granting the preliminary injunction.

Special Term found that defendants' conduct during the demonstrations consisted primarily of picketing, distributing anti-abortion literature, chanting, screaming and counselling; and that, in more recent months, the demonstrations assumed an increasingly disruptive trend, which necessitated the summoning of the police to remove certain of the defendants from the passageways of the premises and to prevent certain members of the organization from physically touching persons who were attempting to enter or exit the building. The court further held that the demonstrations have directly and substantially interfered with the normal functioning of the health care facility and of the building. It stated that "[f]rom the evidence submitted, plaintiff has demonstrated a clear right to the preliminary injunction in order to prevent irreparable injury to plaintiff's patients...