Greentree at Murray Hill Condominium v. Good Shepherd Episcopal Church

• Decision Date: 05 December 1989
• Citation: 146 Misc.2d 500,550 N.Y.S.2d 981
• Parties: The GREENTREE AT MURRAY HILL CONDOMINIUM, Charles J. Ferris, individually and as the President of the Board of Managers of the Greentree at Murray Hill Condominium, a condominium created pursuant to Article 9-A of the Real Property Law of the State of New York and each of its unit owners, Plaintiffs, v. GOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Charles M. Smith, Jr., Acting Commissioner of Buildings, William J. Grinkler, Acting Administrator of the Social Services of the City of New York, the City of New York, Edward I. Koch, Mayor of the City of New York, Partnership for the Homeless, Herbert Stutz, Director of City Planning of the City of New York, The Department of City Planning of the City of New York, Harvey W. Schultz, The Commissioner of Environmental Protection of the City of New York, the Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 981

550 N.Y.S.2d 981

146 Misc.2d 500

The GREENTREE AT MURRAY HILL CONDOMINIUM, Charles J. Ferris,

individually and as the President of the Board of Managers

of the Greentree at Murray Hill Condominium, a condominium

created pursuant to Article 9-A of the Real Property Law of

the State of New York and each of its unit owners, Plaintiffs, v. GOOD SHEPHERD EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Charles M. Smith, Jr.,

Acting Commissioner of Buildings, William J. Grinkler,

Acting Administrator of the Social Services of the City of

New York, the City of New York, Edward I. Koch, Mayor of the

City of New York, Partnership for the Homeless, Herbert

Stutz, Director of City Planning of the City of New York,

The Department of City Planning of the City of New York,

Harvey W. Schultz, The Commissioner of Environmental

Protection of the City of New York, the Department of

Environmental Protection, Defendants.

Supreme Court, New York County,

IAS, Part 23.

Dec. 5, 1989.

Hitsman, Hoffman & O'Reilly, Elmsford, for plaintiffs.

John Miles Evans, New York City, for defendant Good Shephard Episcopal Church.

Christopher K. Sowers, Brooklyn, for defendant The Partnership for the Homeless, Inc.

Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel, Jane Gordon, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York City, for City defendants.

LEONARD N. COHEN, Justice:

".. [T]here was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)

This is a motion by plaintiffs, a unit owner and President of the Board of Managers of a condominium known as Greentree At Murray Hill, located at 248 East 31st Street, New York, New York (the "Condominium") ^* to temporarily enjoin defendants from operating a homeless shelter at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (the "Church") adjacent to the condominium. By separate notices of cross-motion, the defendant Church, the defendant The Partnership for the Homeless, Inc. (the "Partnership"), and the City defendants, seek dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

"Am I my brother's keeper?" (Genesis 4:9)

This action involves important questions regarding who shall be responsible for our less fortunate brothers and sisters. Specifically, the action concerns the extent, if any, to which the court may or should be brought in as arbiter of a dispute involving the right of a church and its parishioners to exercise their religion and to practice Christian charity by temporarily sheltering the homeless and the rights of some of the adjacent property-owning residents who fear crime, drug sales, prostitution and a diminution of property values.

In June 1989, in response to the citywide need for emergency shelters for the thousands of homeless, the Church opened its doors to groups of ten (10) homeless men for temporary emergency shelter three (3) nights a week, in cooperation with the defendant Partnership. The Partnership, a not-for-profit corporation, was founded in August 1982, by lay persons from various religious congregations with leaders of the major religious faith denominations, to provide the major interfaith response to the growing problem of homelessness in New York City. The Partnership presently includes a network of over 380 churches and synagogues in all five boroughs, as well as programs in other major cities across the nation. The Partnership's temporary homeless shelter city network currently embraces 147 church/synagogue shelters, including this Church, providing up to 1600 homeless beds at the height of the winter and over 400,000 individual nights of temporary shelter annually.

Although the Partnership has a contractual relationship with defendant New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA"), which provides approximately 17 percent of its operating budget, and less than 3 percent of its total budget, the bulk of its operating budget is funded from the private sector. The City, through HRA's contract with the Church, provides only beds, linens, clothing, toiletries and cleaning supplies. The City's Department of Buildings periodically inspects the space for compliance with relevant health and safety regulations. The City does not pay either the Partnership or the Church for its temporary sheltering of the homeless, nor does the City provide for any siting control. Sites for temporary shelters are selected by the Partnership in cooperation with participating churches and/or synagogues.

The homeless men who are afforded temporary shelter at the Church are transported there by the City from the John Heuss Center, a drop-in center on Beaver Street in lower Manhattan, established by Trinity Parish. The men arrive between 9:15-9:45 p.m., and are picked up by bus the following morning at approximately 6:00 a.m. From the time of their arrival until their departure the following morning, the men are continually supervised and are not allowed to congregate in the street. The court notes that the Church also has a program which provides food for the hungry on Sundays (following the morning service) and on Fridays at lunchtime. That program--which is not the subject of this lawsuit--distributes bag lunches to approximately 100 guests on Sunday and between 50-75 on Friday. The funds are provided entirely by the Parish and the work is done entirely by parishioners.

In opposition to plaintiff's motion to temporarily enjoin operation of its homeless shelter, and in support of its cross motion to dismiss the complaint, the Church has submitted affidavits by The Right Reverend Richard F. Grein, and Bishop Coadjutor and acting Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese of New York of the Episcopal Church, and by the Reverend Vincent Ioppolo, Rector of the Church, attesting to their deep and sincere religious convictions underlying their participation in the homeless shelter program. They cite the teachings of Jesus and the Holy Scriptures and resolutions adopted by the Diocese at its conventions in 1973, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

The Bishop states:

"While others may debate the root causes of hunger and homelessness and who should bear the ultimate responsibility for feeding and housing the victims, as Christians, we do not believe we have the leisure to turn our backs in the meantime on those in our midst who hunger, thirst or have no place to lay their heads."

The Rector of the Church states that:

"[C]aring for the poor and sheltering the homeless has consistently been part of religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The mandate to embrace and to minister to society's outcasts is a lesson learnt [sic] from the Bible."

The Bishop and Rector cite Bible chapter and verse in support of their position that sheltering the homeless is a religious obligation and an important outlet for its ministry. The Reverend Ioppolo also states that "the religious tradition of giving refuge to persons in need has its roots in Roman, medieval European and English common law. During the Middle Ages every church was a potential sanctuary. Religious sanctuary is an equally well-established practice in this country."

Plaintiffs do not seriously question the sincerity of the religious convictions of the defendant Church or ascribe any but honorable motivations to its conduct in opening up its doors to the handful of homeless men three nights a week. However, they assert that the Church may not house the ten homeless men because such use of the Church would constitute a violation of the applicable Zoning Resolution and the Church's Certificate of Occupancy. Plaintiffs also claim that such use constitutes a public and private nuisance. Plaintiffs further argue that the use of the Church as a homeless shelter should be enjoined because the City: 1) failed to comply with the notice and public hearing requirements of Social Services Law ("SSL") § 43(11), and Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"); and 2) failed to file an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"), pursuant to ECL § 8-0109(4), and to otherwise comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and the City Environmental Quality Review ("CEQR").

The complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) that the direct or indirect funding of the Church's homeless shelter by the City violates the aforementioned laws, rules and regulations and would cause plaintiffs irreparable harm; (2) that the failure of the City to enforce said laws, rules and regulations causes plaintiffs irreparable harm; (3) private nuisance; (4) public nuisance; and (5) irreparable injury. Injunctive relief is sought as to each cause of action pending compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.

As a threshold issue, the court holds that plaintiffs, as property owners immediately adjacent to the Church, have standing to seek judicial review of the City's conduct without pleading or proving any special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from their proximity to the Church (Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 409-410, 515 N.Y.S.2d 418, 508 N.E.2d 130 [1987].

The court first turns to the defendants' cross motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On such a motion, the court must accept each and every allegation as true, without expressing any opinion as to whether a plaintiff ultimately will be able to establish the truth of these averments. If a plaintiff is entitled to a recovery upon any reasonable view of the stated facts, the complaint, as a pleading, is legally sufficient (219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 506, 509, 414 N.Y.S.2d 889, 387 N.E.2d 1205 [1979]. The court's inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether the pleading states any cause of action, and not whether there is evidentiary support for the complaint (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275, 401 N.Y.S.2d 182, 372 N.E.2d 17 [1977]. The complaint must be liberally construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all factual allegations must be accepted as true (Ibid; Morone v. Morone, 50...