Church v. Feiner
Citation | 734 F.Supp.2d 409 |
Decision Date | 12 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 03 Civ. 4235(SCR),03 Civ. 4235(SCR) |
Parties | FORTRESS BIBLE CHURCH and Reverend Dennis G. Karaman, Plaintiffs, v. Paul J. FEINER, Individually and in his Official Capacity as the Supervisor of the Town of Greenburgh, Eddie Mae Barnes, in her Official Capacity as Councilwoman for the Town of Greenburgh, Steven Bass, in His Official Capacity as Councilman for the Town of Greenburgh, Diana Juettner, in her Official Capacity as Councilwoman for the Town of Greenburgh, Timmy Weinberg, in her Official Capacity as Councilwoman for the Town of Greenburgh, the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh, and the Town of Greenburgh, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Donna E. Frosco, Nicholas M. Ward-Willis, Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Plaintiffs.
Kevin Joseph Plunkett, Thacher Proffitt & Wood, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants.
Fortress Bible Church ("Fortress Bible Church" or "the Church") and Reverend Dennis Karaman ("Reverend Karaman") (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "the Church"), brought this action against Paul Feiner, Eddie Mae Barnes, Steven Bass, Timmy Weinberg, the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh ("the Town Board"), and the Town of Greenburgh ("the Town of Greenburgh" or "the Town") (collectively, "Defendants" or "the Town"). Plaintiffs seek relief under: (1) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ("RLUIPA"); (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Plaintiffs' First Amendment Free Exercise, First Amendment Free Speech, First Amendment Free Assembly, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, and Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process rights; (3) the New York State Constitution, alleging violations of Plaintiffs' rights of free exercise, free speech, and equal protection; (4) New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, N.Y. Envir. Cons. LawW §§ 8-0101 et seq. ("SEQRA"), alleging that Defendants' acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unlawfully in processing Fortress Bible Church's land use application; (5) various New York State statutes and the Greenburgh Town Code.
Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 11, 2003. By Notice of Motion dated July3, 2003, Plaintiffs sought an Order compelling the Town Board to, among other things, adopt and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") and SEQRA Findings Statement, thereby completing the SEQRA review process. By Notice of Motion dated July 28, 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
By Decision dated March 29, 2004, 2004 WL 1179306, this Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Town Board to complete the SEQRA process. In a separate Decision, also dated March 29, 2004, 2004 WL 1179307, this Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On or about April 22, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in a lengthy period of discovery that included approximately eighteen depositions and significant document productions.
By Decision dated May 4, 2006, this Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment, except with respect to a cause of action alleging denial of substantive due process. The Court reserved decision on Plaintiffs' motion in limine for sanctions and for an adverse inference based on spoliation of evidence. See Trial Tr. at 21:1-6.1 Trial commenced on October 11, 2006.
The twenty-six day bench trial conducted in this action commenced on October 11, 2006, and proceeded thereafter on non-consecutive days until its conclusion on March 6, 2007. On its case-in-chief, the Church presented testimony from seven fact witnesses and one expert witness, designated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The Church called the following witnesses:
Plaintiffs did not present any rebuttal witnesses.
In addition, Plaintiffs designated, and this Court received into evidence, deposition testimony from the following witnesses 2:
Defendants presented testimony at trial from the following sixteen fact witnesses:
Defendants did not designate or otherwise attempt to introduce testimony from any expert witness.
Over the course of the trial, the Court admitted more than three hundred exhibits into evidence, including joint exhibits and exhibits introduced by the respective parties. The Court also received a Statement of Stipulated Facts.
Following the trial, Plaintiffs submitted to the Court "Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Statement of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" ("Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Statement") and Defendants submitted "Defendants' Proposed Post Trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" ("Defendants' Post-Trial Statement"). The Court also held oral arguments on the parties' post-trial submissions on July 30, 2007.
As set forth above, Plaintiffs and Defendants had a full and fair opportunity to present their cases to the Court. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth below, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), are based on the extensive record developed over the course of the bench trial.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) provides, in relevant part, that in bench trials, the court "shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Rule 52(a) further provides that such findings of fact, "whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses." Id.
i. Plaintiffs
1. Plaintiff Fortress Bible Church is a Pentecostal church. See Trial Tr. at1578:23-1579:5 (Karaman). Fortress Bible Church was established in the early 1940's and has been at its...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Boehner v. Heise
-
Church of Scientology of Ga., Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs, Ga.
...courts have found that special use permit and variance applications involve individualized assessments. See Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 734 F.Supp.2d 409, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y.2010); Living Water Church of God v. Charter Township of Meridian, 384 F.Supp.2d 1123, 1130–31 (W.D.Mich.2005), rev......
-
Bloomingburg Jewish Educ. Ctr. v. Vill. of Bloomingburg, 14–cv–7250 (KBF).
...argue that the dismissal of their state law religious liberty claims at this stage would be premature, citing Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 734 F.Supp.2d 409 (S.D.N.Y.2010), Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d 574, and People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235 (1990). As to Fo......
-
Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield
...several courts have found that permit and variance applications involve individualized assessments. See Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 734 F.Supp.2d 409, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (citing lengthy list of cases and reaching same conclusion). At least three courts have held that landmark laws i......