on which Kalfus relies, warrants no different conclusion under New York law because the free speech claim there at issue concerned a public university’s exclusion of a former student from a “publicly owned and maintained” campus that was “open to the public.” Id. at 410-11, 477 N.Y.S.2d at 115, 465 N.E.2d 831 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Leonard provides no support either for Kalfus’ contention that free speech and press protections extend to private property, such as the hospital steps here at issue, or for his argument that New York law affords more expansive free speech and press protections for activities on private property than the federal Constitution. See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496, 505-06, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99, 105-06, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (1985) (<HOLDING>); accord Downs v. Town of Guilderland, 70
recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify holding that if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the united states the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel holding that it is well settled that while one tenant in common may acquire homestead rights in the common property the rights so acquired are not superior to the rights and remedies of the other joint owners he can acquire no such rights as will prejudice or in anywise interfere with the rights of the other tenants in common