DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In the fall of 2011, Plaintiff Occupy Buffalo (“Occupy”) established an encampment in Niagara Square as part of an international movement protesting growing income inequality, which the City of Buffalo initially permitted pursuant to an agreement. But when the agreement ended, Buffalo police and public works employees cleared both the protesters and their belongings from Niagara Square, over their objections. Occupy and its members allege that their removal from the Square violated their rights under the United States and New York Constitutions and under New York law. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on these claims. (Docket Nos. 62, 74.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to come forth with sufficient evidence to support their causes of action, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. II. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. This Court takes the facts in the light most favorable to Occupy, the non-moving party. See Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2016) (at summary judgment, a court “views the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to…the non-moving party”). Occupy Buffalo is a “non-hierarchical organization comprised of individuals interested in creating a more economically and politically just City of Buffalo and United States.” (Complaint, Docket No. 1, 7.) In early October 2011, several members of Occupy Buffalo “established a round-the-clock encampment in Niagara Square,” in solidarity with other Occupy groups around the country. (Id., 15.) Occupy erected tents where members could interact with each other and with the public and could sort and redistribute donations from Buffalonians supportive of Occupy’s goals. (Id.) The tents stored members’ personal belongings and items donated to the group. (Id.) Around 50 members of Occupy Buffalo “took up permanent residence at the encampment.” (Id., 18.) Niagara Square is a park subject to Chapter 309 of the City of Buffalo Charter and Code. (Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 62-21, 1.) Chapter 309-15 states, in part, that “no person shall sleep in any park or park approach.” (Docket No. 62-3 at p. 1.) Chapter 309 also limits the depositing of any kind of garbage on the grounds of any park without a permit from the Commissioner of Public Works (§309-14, Docket No. 62-4), and provides that parks shall be closed between sunrise and sunset (§309-25A, Docket No. 62-5.) Erecting tents or temporary structures in city parks is forbidden without the permission of the Common Council, which may impose “reasonable conditions” on the same. (§309-36, Docket No. 62-7.) No tent erected for a special event may “remain erect for longer than 15 days unless extended by the Common Council.” (Id.) On or around December 9, 2011, two months after Occupy established its encampment, the City entered an agreement with Occupy allowing its members to use and sleep in Niagara Square, subject to certain terms and conditions (“the Agreement”). (Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 62-21,
3-4; see also Agreement, Docket No. 62-13 at pp. 1-7.) The City agreed to allow Occupy to camp in tents overnight and to place posters, signs, and banners in the Square. (Docket No. 62-13 at pp.1-2.) Occupy agreed to follow proper sanitary procedures, to facilitate Square maintenance by the City, and to collect financial donations for the seeding, maintenance, and electricity costs to the City. (Id. at p. 3.) Occupy also agreed to move from Niagara Square to Lafayette Square (just two blocks away) if required due to inclement weather, to accommodate the City’s snow removal operations, or if another community event sought to use Niagara Square. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) The Agreement extended through February 1, 2012, and was “renewable for additional periods of two months upon compliance with the terms contained herein and continued safe operation within the Square.” (Id. at p. 3.) Occupy understood the Agreement to mean that extensions would be “rubber-stamped” as long as Occupy complied with its terms. (Docket No. 74 at p. 16.) In January 2012, the City began efforts to renegotiate the Agreement. (Docket No. 62-21, 6.) The City asserts that it did so because it needed to prepare for the upcoming festival season, and because remediation of the Square would have become more difficult if Occupy continued to inhabit it. (Id.,
