Mosdos Chofetz Chaim Inc v. Vill. Of Wesley Hills, Case No. 08-CV-156 (KMK).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Writing for the CourtKENNETH M. KARAS
Citation701 F.Supp.2d 568
Decision Date31 March 2010
Docket NumberCase No. 08-CV-156 (KMK).
PartiesMOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM, INC., Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Inc., Rabbi James Bernstein, Moshe Ambers, Rabbi Mayer Zaks, and Rabbi Aryeh Zaks, Plaintiffs,v.VILLAGE OF WESLEY HILLS, The Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Wesley Hills, Robert H. Frankel, in his individual and official capacity, Edward B. McPherson, in his individual and official capacity, David A. Goldsmith, in his individual and official capacity, Robert I. Rhodes, in his individual and former official capacity, Jay B. Rosenstein, in his individual and former official capacity, Village of New Hempstead, the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Hempstead, Robert A. Moskowitz, Trustee of the Village of New Hempstead in his individual and former official capacity, Village of Pomona, The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Former Mayor Herbert I. Marshall, in his individual and former official capacity, Mayor of Pomona Nicholas L. Sanderson, in his individual and official capacity, Village of Chestnut Ridge, the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, Mayor Jerome Kobre, Mayor of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, in his individual and official capacity, Trustee Howard L. Cohen, in his individual and official capacity, Village of Montebello, Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Montebello, Kathryn Ellsworth a/k/a Kathryn Gorman, in her individual and former official capacity, Mayor of Montebello Jeffrey Oppenheim, in his individual and official capacity, and John Doe 1-37, Defendants.

701 F.Supp.2d 568

MOSDOS CHOFETZ CHAIM, INC., Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Inc., Rabbi James Bernstein, Moshe Ambers, Rabbi Mayer Zaks, and Rabbi Aryeh Zaks, Plaintiffs,
v.
VILLAGE OF WESLEY HILLS, The Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Wesley Hills, Robert H. Frankel, in his individual and official capacity, Edward B. McPherson, in his individual and official capacity, David A. Goldsmith, in his individual and official capacity, Robert I. Rhodes, in his individual and former official capacity, Jay B. Rosenstein, in his individual and former official capacity, Village of New Hempstead, the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of New Hempstead, Robert A. Moskowitz, Trustee of the Village of New Hempstead in his individual and former official capacity, Village of Pomona, The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Former Mayor Herbert I. Marshall, in his individual and former official capacity, Mayor of Pomona Nicholas L. Sanderson, in his individual and official capacity, Village of Chestnut Ridge, the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, Mayor Jerome Kobre, Mayor of the Village of Chestnut Ridge, in his individual and official capacity, Trustee Howard L. Cohen, in his individual and official capacity, Village of Montebello, Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Montebello, Kathryn Ellsworth a/k/a Kathryn Gorman, in her individual and former official capacity, Mayor of Montebello Jeffrey Oppenheim, in his individual and official capacity, and John Doe 1-37, Defendants.

Case No. 08-CV-156 (KMK).

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

March 31, 2010.


701 F.Supp.2d 569

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

701 F.Supp.2d 570

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

701 F.Supp.2d 571

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

701 F.Supp.2d 572

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

701 F.Supp.2d 573
Joseph J. Haspel, Esq., Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC, Goshen, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Reuben S. Koolyk, Esq., Arnold & Porter, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew F. Pisanelli, Esq., Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants Village of Pomona, Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Pomona, Herbert I. Marshall, and Nicholas L. Sanderson.

Michael David Zarin, Esq., Zarin & Steinmetz, White Plains, NY, for Remaining Defendants.

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. (“Mosdos”), Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Inc.

701 F.Supp.2d 574
(“YCC”), Rabbi James Bernstein (“Bernstein”), Moshe Ambers (“Ambers”), Rabbi Mayer Zaks (“Mayer Zaks”), and Rabbi Aryeh Zaks (“Aryeh Zaks”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants the Village of Wesley Hills (“Wesley Hills”), the Mayor and the Board of Trustees of Wesley Hills, Robert H. Frankel, Edward B. McPherson, David A. Goldsmith, Robert I. Rhodes, Jay B. Rosenstein (together, the “Wesley Hills Defendants”), the Village of New Hempstead (“New Hempstead”), the Mayor and Board of Trustees of New Hempstead, Robert A. Moskowitz (together, the “New Hempstead Defendants”), the Village of Pomona (“Pomona”), the Mayor and Board of Trustees of Pomona, Herbert I. Marshall, Nicholas L. Sanderson (together, the “Pomona Defendants”), the Village of Chestnut Ridge (“Chestnut Ridge”), the Mayor and Board of Trustees of Chestnut Ridge, Jerome Kobre, Howard L. Cohen (together, the “Chestnut Ridge Defendants”), the Village of Montebello (“Montebello”), the Mayor and Board of Trustees of Montebello, Kathryn Ellsworth a/k/a Kathryn Gorman, Jeffrey Oppenheim (together, the “Montebello Defendants”), and John Does 1-37 (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (“§ 1982”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (“§ 1985”) for violations of and conspiracy to violate their rights under the Free Exercise and the Free Assembly Clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”), the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq. (“FHA”), the New York State Constitution, Article I, §§ 3 & 11, and New York Civil Rights Law Section 40-c. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and compensatory relief.1

Wesley Hills Defendants, New Hempstead Defendants, Chestnut Ridge Defendants, and Montebello Defendants move to dismiss this action pursuant to

701 F.Supp.2d 575
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 13(a). Pomona Defendants move to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motions and dismisses this case without prejudice.
I. Background
A. Factual Background

For the purpose of resolving the instant Motions, the Court accepts as true all facts alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

1. The Parties

Plaintiffs are religious corporations and individuals affiliated with the Chofetz Chaim sect of the Orthodox Jewish community, all of whom allege an interest in the operation of Kiryas Radin, “a religious educational institution and center for religious activity and prayer,” at a location known as the Nike Site.2 (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 8-13, 40.) Plaintiff Mosdos is a religious corporation that owns the Nike Site. ( Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff YCC, also a religious corporation, is the former owner of the Nike Site, and it has partnered with Mosdos to operate Kiryas Radin. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-33.) See Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, No. 07-CV-9278, 2008 WL 4525753, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2008) (“ Chestnut Ridge II ”). Plaintiffs Aryeh Zaks and Meyer Zaks are individuals who are religious leaders of the YCC, and Plaintiffs Bernstein and Ambers are individuals who seek to study and live at Kiryas Radin. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-13.) Defendants are five Villages (the “Village Defendants”) located within the Town of Ramapo (“Ramapo”), as well as current and former officials of each of those Villages (the “Individual Defendants”). ( Id. ¶¶ 14-30.) Plaintiffs have filed this action to challenge alleged discriminatory conduct by Defendants, which Plaintiffs argue violate their civil rights. ( Id. ¶¶ 1-5.)

2. The Village Incorporation Movement

Beginning in the 1970s, Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish families “began to reside in [Ramapo] in increasing numbers.” ( Id. ¶ 45.) According to Plaintiffs, the influx of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews to Ramapo and its surrounding areas prompted a “village incorporation movement,” in which residents of Ramapo “began to establish villages for the purpose of controlling who resided within each village.” ( Id. ¶¶ 45-46 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Defendant Villages Montebello, Chestnut Ridge, Wesley Hills, and New Hempstead were allegedly formed as part of this movement. ( Id. ¶ 46.) Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that “[t]he purpose of the village formation movement was to exercise control over zoning and planning and not provide for or otherwise accommodate” the increasing Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish population. ( Id. ¶ 47.) While Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Pomona was incorporated as part of this movement, Plaintiffs allege that Pomona also was “incorporated to ... provide local zoning regulations inconsistent with the religious practices of the Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish communities.” ( Id. ¶ 100.)

3. Defendant Villages' Allegedly Discriminatory Zoning

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have enacted discriminatory zoning provisions with the purpose of excluding members of the Orthodox Jewish community. ( Id. ¶¶ 98, 101-03, 117, 119, 122.) New Hempstead's zoning code is allegedly “designed to create enormous difficulty for ultra religious

701 F.Supp.2d 576
and Hasidic Jews to reside within its boundaries.” ( Id. ¶ 98.) Pomona's zoning laws are also allegedly discriminatory, as they “prevent Yeshivas of any form or kind from coming into their jurisdiction” and exclude “religious assemblies” from their jurisdiction. ( Id. ¶¶ 101-03.) Likewise, Wesley Hills, Chestnut Ridge, and Montebello have allegedly promulgated “zoning regulations inconsistent with the religious practices of the Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish communities.” ( Id. ¶¶ 107, 119, 122.) Finally, Plaintiffs allege that Wesley Hills has implemented land use regulations designed to “keep out ultra religious and Hasidic people.” ( Id. ¶ 117.)
4. The Prior New Hempstead Litigation

YCC purchased the Nike Site from the federal government around May 30, 1997. (Def. Vills. of Chestnut Ridge, Montebello, Wesley Hills, and New Hempstead's (“Def. Vills.' ”) Ex. C, Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, Yeshiva Choeftz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. Vill. of New Hempstead, No. 97-CV-4021 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2000) 2). At the time, the Nike Site was under the jurisdiction of New Hempstead. ( Id. at 1.)

Around the time YCC purchased the Nike Site, New Hempstead officials allegedly “informed various government agencies,” including the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency, that the Nike Site was contaminated with lead and friable asbestos. (Compl. ¶ 81.) During the same time period, New Hempstead officials also allegedly notified the East Ramapo Local School Board “that the work involved in renovating the property would endanger the young lives attending the Colton School,” which is located near the Nike Site. ( Id. ¶ 84.) Further, New Hempstead officials allegedly notified the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) that the Nike Site was unsafe due to the presence of asbestos. ( Id. ¶ 88.) Plaintiffs allege that the New Hempstead officials' representations to these government bodies were false and that they “were made to thwart [YCC's] development and religious use” of the Nike Site. ( Id. ¶¶ 82-90.) Indeed, the “DEC [allegedly] evaluated the property and found no merit behind” the claims. ( Id. ¶ 91.) Nonetheless, Plaintiffs allege...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 practice notes
  • Missere v. Gross, Case No. 09–CV–8183 (KMK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 31, 2011
    ...protected activity for which the Storm King Defendants could claim immunity. See Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 593–97 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (discussing applicability of Noerr–Pennington doctrine to civil rights actions); cf. Holzemer v. City of Memphis, 62......
  • San Diego Cnty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. Cal., A146901
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 2017
    ...v. City of Glendale (9th Cir.2000) 227 F.3d 1090, 1093 ; see Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills (S.D.N.Y.2010) 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 598-602.) In holding that San Diego Water Authority has no constitutional right to petition, the trial court relied primarily on Star-Kist Foo......
  • Adams v. Kraft, Case No.: 10-CV-00602-LHK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 8, 2011
    ...engaged in 'selective' petitioning in violation of the Equal Protection Clause." Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F. Supp. 2d 568, 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The court also went on to suggest that government actors are only afforded Noerr-Pennington immunity when they exer......
  • Carris v. First Student, Inc., 5:13-CV-0923 (GTS/ATB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 18, 2015
    ...other [individuals] were treated differently" to survive a motion to dismiss. Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F. Supp. 2d 568, 604 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this requirement by neglecting to provide any relevant details, such ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
64 cases
  • Vaher v. Town of Orangetown, 10 Civ. 1606(ER).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 2, 2013
    ...No. 08 Civ. 8427(LBS), 2010 WL 4159566, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2010)); see also Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 603–04 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“[M]ore than a bare allegation that other [individuals] were treated differently is required” to survive a motion......
  • Int'l Diamond Importers, Inc. v. Oriental Gemco (N.Y.), Inc., 14–cv–3506 SAS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 24, 2014
    ...12 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 623 (2d Cir.2003) ).49 Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills, 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 580–81 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (alteration in original) (quoting J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch., 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir.2004) ).50 Dyneg......
  • Carris v. First Student, Inc., 5:13–CV–0923 (GTS/ATB).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • September 18, 2015
    ...that other [individuals] were treated differently" to survive a motion to dismiss. Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 604 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet this requirement by neglecting to provide any relevant details, suc......
  • Versatile Housewares & Gardening Sys., Inc. v. Thill Logistics, Inc., 09–CV–10182 (KMK)(PED).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 29, 2011
    ...in favor of SAS. ( Id.) Even if the Court were to credit this argument, see Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Vill. of Wesley Hills, 701 F.Supp.2d 568, 592 n. 15 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (“The Court ... will not favorably consider an argument initially made in a reply brief.”), it is without merit. First......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT