Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona

• Decision Date: 04 January 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 07–CV–6304 (KMK).
• Citation: 915 F.Supp.2d 574
• Parties: CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV, INC., Rabbi Mordechai Babad, Rabbi Wolf Brief, Rabbi Hermen Kahana, Rabbi Meir Margulis, Rabbi Gergely Neuman, Rabbi Meilech Menczer, Rabbi Jacob Hershkowitz, Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg, Rabbi David A. Menczer, Rabbi Aryeh Royde, and Kolel Belz of Monsey, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF POMONA, Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Nicholas Sanderson, as mayor, Ian Banks, as Trustee and in his official capacity, Alma Sanders Roman, as Trustee and in her official capacity, Rita Louie, as Trustee and in her official capacity, and Brett Yagel, as Trustee and in his official capacity, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

915 F.Supp.2d 574

CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV, INC., Rabbi Mordechai Babad, Rabbi Wolf Brief, Rabbi Hermen Kahana, Rabbi Meir Margulis, Rabbi Gergely Neuman, Rabbi Meilech Menczer, Rabbi Jacob Hershkowitz, Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg, Rabbi David A. Menczer, Rabbi Aryeh Royde, and Kolel Belz of Monsey, Plaintiffs,

v.VILLAGE OF POMONA, Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Nicholas Sanderson, as mayor, Ian Banks, as Trustee and in his official capacity, Alma Sanders Roman, as Trustee and in her official capacity, Rita Louie, as Trustee and in her official capacity, and Brett Yagel, as Trustee and in his official capacity, Defendants.

Case No. 07–CV–6304 (KMK).

United States District Court,

S.D. New York.

Jan. 4, 2013.

Paul Savad, Esq., Susan E. Cooper, Esq., Laura M. Feigenbaum, Esq., Savad Churgin, Attorneys at Law, Nanuet, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Roman P. Storzer, Esq., Robert L. Greene, Esq., Storzer & Greene, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs.

John G. Stepanovich, Esq., Lentz, Stepanovich & Bergethon, P.L.C., Virginia Beach, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Joseph L. Clasen, Esq., William J. Kelleher, III, Esq., Samantha L.H. Cassetta, Esq., Robinson & Cole LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

Marci A. Hamilton, Esq., The Law Office of Marci Hamilton, Washington Crossing, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge.

“This case presents the familiar conflict between the legal principle of non-discrimination and the political principle of not-in-my-backyard.” New Directions Treatment Servs. v. City of Reading, 490 F.3d 293, 295 (3d Cir.2007). Plaintiffs challenge certain zoning and environmental ordinances enacted by Defendant Village of Pomona, asserting that the ordinances are unlawful under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., the New York Civil Rights Law § 40–c(1), (2), Article I, Sections 3, 8, 9, and 11 of the New York State Constitution, and New York common law. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the enactment and enforcement of the Village of Pomona, New York Code Sections 130–4 (defining educational institutions and dormitories), 130–10(F)(12) (limiting the size of dormitories pursuant to an educational use), and 126 (establishing wetlands protections) (together, the “challenged ordinances”).¹ Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

The Court assumes the following facts, largely drawn from Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, as true for purposes of the instant Motion. Plaintiffs have brought this action to challenge the aforementioned zoning ordinances adopted by Defendant Village of Pomona (the “Village”); Plaintiffs claim that the ordinances unlawfully prohibit Plaintiff Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov (the “Congregation”) from owning, holding, building, and operating a rabbinical college on a 100–acre tract (the “Subject Property”) located in the Village and owned by the Congregation. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 28).)

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs are corporations and individuals affiliated with the Orthodox Jewish community, including various sects of the Hasidic community, all of whom allege an interest in the construction of a rabbinical college on the Subject Property. ( Id. ¶¶ 24–27.) The Congregation, the owner of the Subject Property, is a religious corporation that was formed in 2004 with the aim of constructing a rabbinical college and related facilities on the Subject Property. ( Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff Kolel Belz of Monsey (“Kolel Belz”) is a religious corporation that serves more than 200 families and purports to “represent[ ] the interests of itself and the broader Orthodox community in actively seeking trained” rabbinical judges (“ dayanim ”) to “conduct the activities of rabbinical courts.” ( Id. ¶¶ 34–35.) Plaintiffs Rabbi Mordechai Babad (“M. Babad”), Rabbi Wolf Brief, Rabbi Hermen Kahana, Rabbi Meir Margulis, Rabbi Gergely Neuman, Rabbi Meilech Menczer (“M. Menczer”), Rabbi Jacob Hershkowitz, Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg, Rabbi David A. Menczer (“D. Menczer”), and Rabbi Aryeh Royde (collectively, the “Individual Plaintiffs”) are trained Rabbis who seek to live and to teach and/or to study at the Congregation's proposed rabbinical college. ( Id. ¶¶ 11–20.) Defendants consist of the Village, its Mayor, Nicholas Sanderson, and the members of its Board of Trustees, Ian Banks, Alma Sanders Roman, Rita Louie, and Brett Yagel. ( Id. ¶¶ 22–23.)

B. The Religious Significance of a Rabbinical College

According to Orthodox Jewish belief, Orthodox Jews are not permitted to resolve conflicts in the secular court system. ( Id. ¶ 54.) Rather, the Orthodox Jewish religion requires that Orthodox Jews resolve conflicts in rabbinical courts before rabbinical judges applying Jewish law. ( Id.) The Orthodox Jewish community therefore is obligated by religious belief to create rabbinical courts in every locale where Orthodox Jews live. ( Id. ¶¶ 54–55.) Currently, however, because there are very few trained rabbinical judges in the United States, “there are only a very few [r]abbinical [c]ourts ... serving Orthodox Jews in the entire United States,” and those courts are “extremely overburdened.” ( Id. ¶ 49.)

Plaintiffs allege that by building the rabbinical college, the Congregation seeks to ameliorate the “severe” shortage of trained rabbinical judges in the Orthodox Jewish community. ( Id. ¶¶ 25, 33.) While several other rabbinical colleges exist in the United States, “[t]he existing [institutions] are insufficient to meet the need of students” who wish to become rabbinical judges and to train the number of “[r]abbinical [j]udges needed to serve the Orthodox Jewish community.” ( Id. ¶ 82.) Moreover, not all of the rabbinical colleges in the United States offer the “full course of study or religious environment” that the Congregation's planned rabbinical college will offer. ( Id.) Although Plaintiffs acknowledge that one rabbinical college already offers the same type of program that the Congregation's rabbinical college plans to offer—Kollel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, located in Brooklyn, New York—that “facility is extremely overcrowded and ... [i]ts doors have been shut for several years to new rabbis because of ... dire space limitations.” ( Id. ¶ 48.)

C. The Congregation's Planned Rabbinical College

The Congregation's planned rabbinical college will be “devoted solely to religious training of [rabbinical judges] who will be tested and certified by rabbinical authorities ... after many years of intense religious study.” ( Id. ¶ 53.) Rabbinical students, all of whom must be ordained Rabbis, “will normally begin these specialized religious studies between the ages of 20 and 30.” ( Id. ¶ 59.) Training to become a certified rabbinical judge may take “up to (or beyond) fifteen years.” ( Id.) During that time, rabbinical students will study the religious laws of the Orthodox Jewish tradition, as well as “the wise and just application of the religious laws,” and they will learn how “to counsel members of the Orthodox Jewish community on the day-to-day questions that arise in applying Jewish Law to every aspect of their daily lives.” ( Id. ¶ 58.)

The academic format of the planned rabbinical college “is based upon strenuous religious study and prayer during the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m., with meal breaks.” ( Id. ¶ 60.) Plaintiffs believe that “it is essential for these students to live, study and pray in the same place in order to minimize outside influences and to intensify the religious learning experience.” ( Id. ¶ 65.) In accord with Plaintiffs' belief that “[r]esidential housing is essential to the training provided by” a rabbinical college, the Congregation's rabbinical college will include housing for the rabbinical students. ( Id. ¶ 64.) Such housing must accommodate families, as many students “will be married, some with young children.” ( Id. ¶¶ 59, 66.)

Additionally, because “Orthodox Jews must pray three times per day, in morning, afternoon and evening services,” ( id. ¶ 63), Plaintiffs allege that it is essential to their religious beliefs that the rabbinical college and the residential housing be close in proximity to synagogues (“ shuls ”), ( id.). Accordingly, the planned rabbinical college will include up to ten shuls to accommodate Orthodox Jews of all sects and traditions, including Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and other Hasidic and Orthodox sects. ( Id. ¶ 68.)

The Congregation's rabbinical college will also include four rabbinical courtrooms on campus, “which will be used to litigate and settle disputes, and as teaching facilities for students to become certified [r]abbinical [j]udges.” ( Id. ¶ 69.) The campus will further house “multiple libraries, which will contain the books necessary for the educational program.” ( Id. ¶ 70.)

While the Orthodox Jewish religion prescribes a rigorous program for the certification of rabbinical judges, Plaintiffs allege that no formal accreditation process exists for the program that will be offered by the rabbinical college. ( Id. ¶¶ 105–06.)

D. The Subject Property

The Subject Property consists of a 100–acre tract of land located within the Village and also within the larger Town of Ramapo. ( Id. ¶¶ 1, 73, 75.) The Congregation purchased the Subject Property in August 2004 with the intention of building thereon its rabbinical college and related facilities. ( Id. ¶¶ 10, 73.) Around the same time, an “additional contiguous 30 acres was [sic] purchased by an affiliate of the Congregation to serve as a buffer between the [r]abbinical [c]ollege and the neighboring community.” ( Id. ¶ 74.) Plaintiffs allege that...