In City of New York v. Andrews, 186 Misc.2d 533, 719 N.Y.S.2d 442, the Court discussed the "...two intertwined constitutional rights which are impacted by ... civil banishment of individuals from...a neighborhood: the right to travel to and through the area, and every person's right to remain in the public area of their choice." id., p.544. The Andrews Court said " Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., (512 U.S. 753, 129 L. Ed. 2d 593, 114 S. Ct. 2516) ... pointed out that the standards to be applied to injunctions which inhibit constitutional rights are different from those to be applied to ordinances having that effect because injunctions carry greater risks of discriminatory enforcement than ordinances of general appreciation" id., p.546. The Court said these dangers are mollified however by the agreement that such an "injunction must be tailored to the specific activities complained of" so that it does not "burden the Defendant's constitutional liberties any more that is required to serve the governmental interests involved." id., p.547. In People v. Couser, 258 A.D.2d 74, 695, 695 N.Y.S.2d 781, the Court said at p.81, "When a penal law is challenged on the ground of vagueness, there are two due process requirements that must be met: "first, the stature must provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited; second, the statute must not be written in such a manner as to permit or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement" (People v. Bright, 71 N.Y.2d 376, 382, 526 N.Y.S.2d 66, 520 N.E.2d 1355; see, People v. First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 N.Y.2d 608, 621-622, 635 N.Y.S.2d 144, 658 N.E.2d 1017)."