E. Meadow Cmty. Concerts Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 3, County of Nassau

224 N.E.2d 888, 19 N.Y.2d 605, 278 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1785
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 19, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 224 N.E.2d 888 (E. Meadow Cmty. Concerts Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 3, County of Nassau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
E. Meadow Cmty. Concerts Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 3, County of Nassau, 224 N.E.2d 888, 19 N.Y.2d 605, 278 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1785 (N.Y. 1967).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The record before us clearly establishes that the plaintiff qualifies under section 414 (subds. 3, 4) of the Education Law as an organization entitled to use the school facilities during out of school hours and that it was unconstitutional and improper for the defendant to deny the use of these facilities to the plaintiff solely because of the controversial views that had previously been expressed by .the scheduled performer, Pete Seeger. As we observed in our earlier decision in this case (18 N Y 2d 129, 134), “ The expression of controversial and unpopular views * * * is precisely what is protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions ” (U. S. Const., 1st Amdt.; N. Y. Const., art. I, § 8; see, e.g., Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 132-135; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290; Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U. S. 496; Matter of Rockwell v. Morris, 10 N Y 2d 721, affg. 12 A D 2d 272) and, .since there is here no showing that Seeger’s expression of his views would immediately and irreparably create injury to the public weal ” (Matter of Rockwell v. Morris, 12 A D 2d 272, 278, affd. 10 N Y 2d 721, supra), it follows that the defendant’s refusal to permit this concert to take place in the school auditorium constituted “ an unlawful restriction of the constitutional right of free speech and expression” (18 N Y 2d, at p. 134). The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Corcoran v. Quick
109 Misc. 2d 996 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Pico v. BOARD OF ED., ISLAND TREES UNION FREE SCH.
474 F. Supp. 387 (E.D. New York, 1979)
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. City of Charlotte, NC
333 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. North Carolina, 1971)
Kissinger v. New York City Transit Authority
274 F. Supp. 438 (S.D. New York, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
224 N.E.2d 888, 19 N.Y.2d 605, 278 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-meadow-cmty-concerts-assn-v-bd-of-educ-of-union-free-sch-dist-no-ny-1967.