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

• Decision Date: 29 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 07–CV–6304 (KMK).
• Parties: CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV, INC., Rabbi Mordechai Babad, Rabbi Wolf Brief, Rabbi Hermen Kahana, Rabbi Meir Margulis, Rabbi Akiva Pollack, Rabbi Meilech Menczer, Rabbi Joseph Hershkowitz, Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg, and Rabbi David A. Menczer, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF POMONA, Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Nicholas Sanderson, as Mayor, Ian Banks, as Trustee, Alma Sanders–Roman, as Trustee, Rita Louie, as Trustee, and Brett Yagel, as Trustee, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

138 F.Supp.3d 352

CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV, INC., Rabbi Mordechai Babad, Rabbi Wolf Brief, Rabbi Hermen Kahana, Rabbi Meir Margulis, Rabbi Akiva Pollack, Rabbi Meilech Menczer, Rabbi Joseph Hershkowitz, Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg, and Rabbi David A. Menczer, Plaintiffs,

v.VILLAGE OF POMONA, Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Nicholas Sanderson, as Mayor, Ian Banks, as Trustee, Alma Sanders–Roman, as Trustee, Rita Louie, as Trustee, and Brett Yagel, as Trustee, Defendants.

Case No. 07–CV–6304 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 29, 2015.

Paul Savad, Esq., Joseph Allan Churgin, Esq., Susan E. Cooper, Esq., Savad, Churgin, Nanuet, NY, for Plaintiffs.

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

Donna Corby Sobel, Esq., Furgang & Adwar, L.L.P., West Nyack, NY, for Plaintiffs.

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

Robert Leo Greene, Esq., Law Office of Robert L. Greene, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Andrea Donovan Napp, Esq., Amanda E. Gordon, Esq., James A. Wade, Esq., Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.

John Francis Xavier Peloso, Jr., Esq., Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendants.

Joseph L. Clasen, 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 & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS

, District Judge:

Plaintiffs bring challenges to certain zoning and environmental ordinances enacted by Defendant Village of Pomona (the "Village"), alleging they 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., New York Civil Rights Law § 40–c(1) and (2), §§ 3, 8, 9 and 11 of the New York State Constitution, and New York common law. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenge the enactment and enforcement of portions of the Village of Pomona, New York Code ("Village Code") §§ 130–4 (defining educational institutions and dormitories) ("Accreditation Law"), 130–10(F)(12) (limiting the size of dormitories) (together with the definition of "dormitory" in § 130–4, the "Dormitory Law"), and 126 (establishing wetlands protections) ("Wetlands Law") (together, the "Challenged Laws").¹ Plaintiffs move for Summary Judgment on several of their claims and Defendants' affirmative defenses, and for sanctions due to the spoliation of evidence. Defendants cross-move for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims, and for certain evidence to be stricken from the record. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiffs' Free Speech and New York Common law claims, grants summary judgment to Plaintiffs on Defendants' affirmative defenses, denies summary judgment to all Parties as to all other claims, grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions as discussed below, and grants Defendants' Motion to Strike in part.

I. Background

The Court assumes familiarity with the basic allegations of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, (Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") (Dkt. No. 27)), as discussed in the Court's January 7, 2013 Opinion and Order, (Dkt. No. 53.) See Congregation Rabbinical Coll. of Tartikov, Inc. v. Vill. of Pomona, 915 F.Supp.2d 574, 607 (S.D.N.Y.2013)

("2013 Opinion and Order"). In short, Plaintiffs bring this Action alleging that the Challenged Laws prohibit the owning, holding, building, and operation of a rabbinical college within the Village (the "Village"). (SAC ¶ 1.) While Plaintiffs specifically claim that the Challenged Laws prohibit Plaintiff Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov (the "Congregation") from building its planned rabbinical college on a 100–acre tract (the "Subject Property") located in the Village and owned by the Congregation, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' as-applied challenges, as well as their New York Civil Rights Law § 40–c claim, in its 2013 Opinion and Order. Congregation Tartikov, 915 F.Supp.2d at 607. It is for this reason that Plaintiffs now proceed based solely on facial challenges to the Challenged Laws. The Court briefly reviews the salient factual background below.

A. Factual Background²

1. The Parties

Plaintiffs are a corporation 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. (Pls.' Rule 56.1

Statement of Material Facts in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Pls.' 56.1") ¶¶ 1, 88, 90, 92, 94–95, 97, 525 (Dkt. No. 139).) The Congregation, officially "the Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc.," the owner of the Subject Property, is a religious corporation that was formed on August 1, 2004. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 69–70, 101; Defs.' Response Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)

to Pls.' Statement of Material Facts ("Defs.' Counter 56.1") ¶ 121 (Dkt. No. 175) (citing Aff. of Amanda E. Gordon ("Gordon Aff.") Ex. 18 (Certificate of Incorporation) (Dkt. No. 150); see also Defs.' Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement in Supp. of their Mot. for Summ. J. ("Defs.' 56.1") ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 142).) At the time of incorporation, the Congregation's trustees included Chaim Babad ("C. Babad"), who indirectly financed the Congregation at least in part, Abraham Halberstam, Naftali Babad, Samuel Chimmel, Michael Tauber ("Tauber"), and Asher Mandel. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 10); Pls.' Opp'n to Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts ("Pls.' Counter 56.1") ¶ 6 (Dkt. No. 176) (citing Gordon Aff. Ex. 18).) Plaintiffs Rabbi Mordechai Babad ("M. Babad"), Rabbi Wolf Brief ("W. Brief"), Rabbi Hermen Kahana ("H. Kahana"), Rabbi Meir Margulis ("M. Margulis"), Rabbi Akiva Pollack ("A. Pollack"), Rabbi Meilech Menczer ("M. Menczer"), Rabbi Jacob Hershkowitz ("J. Hershkowitz"), Rabbi Chaim Rosenberg ("C. Rosenbenberg"), and Rabbi David A. Menczer ("D. Menczer") (collectively, the "Individual Plaintiffs") are rabbis who seek to live, teach, and/or study at the Congregation's proposed rabbinical college. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 14; see also Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 88, 90, 92, 94–95, 97.) Defendants consist of the Village, its Board of Trustees, its current Mayor Brett Yagel ("Mayor Yagel"), its former mayor and Trustee Nicholas Sanderson ("Former Mayor Sanderson"), and other members of its Board of Trustees–Ian Banks ("Banks"), Alma Sanders Roman ("Roman"), and Rita Louie ("Louie")—each sued in his or her official capacity. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 1, 3–4.)

2. Rabbinical Colleges

According to Orthodox Jewish belief, Orthodox Jews are not permitted to resolve conflicts in the secular court system, but rather must have their conflicts adjudicated in rabbinical courts, before rabbinical judges applying Jewish law. (Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 49, 52.) For this reason, Orthodox Jews require rabbinical courts sufficiently proximate to their homes. (See id. ¶ 51.) However, there are very few rabbinical judges, and very few rabbinical courts, in the United States today, and those courts are overburdened. (See id. ¶¶ 50–51, 59–61.)

In response to this growing need, the Congregation's proposed rabbinical college would enroll students, at no charge, who have completed a "high school level program in the Talmud" and who are deemed qualified by M. Babad, some of whom have already received offers of admission. (Id. ¶¶ 550, 552–53, 555, 558; Defs.' Counter 56.1 ¶ 555 (citing Decl. of Paul Savad in Supp. of Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. ("Savad Decl.") Ex. 29 (M. Babad Tr.) 133 (Dkt. No. 155)); (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 51). The rabbinical college would therefore have no entrance examination, written examination, or written criteria for admission. (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 551; Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 37, 39–40.) For 13 to 15 years, between 6:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and in study sessions on Friday and Saturday, the students would study the four books, or "divisions," of the Shulchan Aruch, a compellation of Jewish laws of the Orthodox Hasidic tradition. (See Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 36–37, 65–66, 68, 528, 531, 537.) Of central importance here, Plaintiffs "believe that Jewish men are religiously obligated to marry at a young age and have large families," (id. ¶ 38), that "Judaism ... directs [them] to dwell among a community that is directed to the Torah," (id. ¶ 44), and that "Jewish males [must] ... learn the Torah day and night," (id. ¶ 46). Accordingly, Plaintiffs believe that students of the proposed rabbinical college must live, study, and pray in the same place, full-time, in a "Torah Community" separated from the outside world, which in turn requires that their education be free and that multi-family housing be available such that students can live with their families. (Id. ¶¶ 71–74); 450 (citing, inter alia, Decl. of Meilech Menczer ¶ 55 (Dkt. No. 147), 499 (citing, inter alia, Savad Decl. Ex. 27 (M. Tauber Tr.) 84), 539–540, 559, 562.) The proposed rabbinical college would therefore include "somewhere between 50 and 250 units of housing, which will be apartments that have 3 or 4 bedrooms, ranging in size from 1800–2000 square feet." (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 44.) The rabbinical college would also include at least four rabbinical courtrooms, ritual baths ("mikvahs"), synagogues, and multiple libraries. (Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 513, 518.)³

While there are three other schools that currently train rabbinical judges in the area, namely Kollel Belz and Mechon L'Horoya near Monsey, N.Y. and Kollel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov in Brooklyn, NY, the Congregation's proposed rabbinical college is the only one that offers an immersive Torah Community, which enables the college to train full-time rabbinical judges. (See id. ¶¶ 565, (citing, inter alia, Savad Ex. 34 (Steven Resnicoff Dep. Tr.) 19–22), 568–71; Defs.' Counter 56.1 ¶ 570–71.) Plaintiffs also contend that Kollel Belz and Mechon L'Horoya "only teach certain sec...