Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr. v. Inc. Vill. of Old Westbury, 09–CV–5195 (PKC).
| Decision Date | 03 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–CV–5195 (PKC).,09–CV–5195 (PKC). |
| Citation | 128 F.Supp.3d 566 |
| Parties | The ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. The INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF OLD WESTBURY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Daphne Morduchowitz, Vincent A. Sama, Kaye Scholer LLP, Eric M. Robinson, Stevens & Lee, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Hiram Carey, Karla L. Chaffee, Robinson & Cole LLP, Boston, MA, Jason Ederer, Peter J. Biging, Goldberg Segalla LLP, Jennifer H. Feldscher, Joanne J. Romero, Lewis Brisbois Bisgard & Smith LLP, New York, NY, John Peloso, Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendants.
Plaintiff, The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York (the "Diocese") asserts claims against Defendants, The Incorporated Village of Old Westbury (the "Village"), its Board of Trustees, and various individual Village trustees and officials, challenging the Village's imposition of restrictions, pursuant to its "Places of Worship" zoning law (the "POW Law"), on a proposed Diocese cemetery. The Diocese alleges that the POW Law and Defendants' conduct relating to its enforcement violate the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Defendants move for summary judgment on all of the Diocese's claims on various grounds. Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment solely on the basis that the POW Law is facially unconstitutional. Because the Court finds that the POW Law is facially constitutional, the Diocese's motion is denied, and Defendants' motion with respect to that claim is granted. The Court also grants Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's RLUIPA equal terms claim and its Equal Protection claim1 , but denies summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's (1) RLUIPA substantial burden claim, (2) as-applied constitutional challenge to the POW Law2 , (3) First Amendment free exercise of religion claim, (4) Section 1983 retaliation claim, and (5) unlawful search claim against Defendant Michael Malatino.3 These five claims will proceed to trial.
The Diocese is a non-profit religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. (Def. 56.14 ¶ 1.) The Village, which was incorporated in 1924, is comprised of roughly 12 square miles of land in Nassau County, New York, and has a population of approximately 4,600 people. (Id. ¶ 2.)
The Village Board of Trustees ("Board") is the Village's legislative and governing body, and consists of five Trustees, one of whom, Defendant Trustee Fred Carillo, is designated as the Mayor of the Village. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant Trustees Carillo, Harvey Blau, Harvey Simpson, Steven Greenberg5 , and Michael Wolf have been sued in their individual and official capacities. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant Malatino, the Village's Superintendent of Buildings and Public Works, has also been sued in his individual and official capacities. (Id. ¶ 6.)
In 1975, New York State enacted the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), which is codified in Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL"). (Id. ¶ 20.) The SEQRA regulations contain an elaborate set of procedures that municipalities must comply with when evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed development project. 6 NYCRR §§ 617.4, 617.5. One of the first steps in the SEQRA process is for the municipality to classify the project under SEQRA. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 20.) A project may fall into one of the following three categories: (1) Type I actions, which consist of actions that the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") has determined are more likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts; (2) Type II actions, which consist of actions that the DEC has determined do not have a significant environmental impact; or (3) Unlisted actions, which are actions that are neither Type I or Type II actions. 6 NYCRR §§ 617.4, 617.5.
Since there can be more than one government agency with jurisdiction over a project, SEQRA contains a detailed set of procedures by which a municipality can establish itself as the "lead agency" for purposes of conducting the environmental impact review of the project. Id. § 617.6. Once a lead agency has been established, it renders a "determination of significance" for the project, which is the basis for the action classification described above. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 24.)
The initial SEQRA tool used to make a "determination of significance" is the Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF")6 . (Id. ¶ 25.) In making a legally sufficient "determination of significance," a lead agency must: (1) review the EAF and identify all relevant areas of environmental concern; (2) thoroughly analyze the relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and (3) set forth its determination of significance in writing, providing reference to any supporting documentation. 6 NYCRR § 617.7(b).
If the lead agency determines that an action "may include the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact," an environmental impact statement must be drafted for the project. Id. § 617.7(a)(1). The Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") must analyze the significant adverse impacts and all reasonable alternatives. Id. § 617.9(b)(1). The project sponsor prepares and submits to the lead agency a draft EIS ("DEIS"). The lead agency will determine whether to accept the DEIS as adequate, with respect to its scope and content, for the purpose of commencing public review.7 Id. § 617.9(a)(2). If the DEIS is determined to be inadequate, the lead agency must identify, in writing, the deficiencies and provide this information to the project sponsor. Id. § 617.9(a)(2)(i). When the lead agency has determined that a DEIS is adequate for public review, it will then decide whether to conduct a public hearing concerning the action. Id. § 617.9(a)(4). The lead agency then must prepare and file a final EIS ("FEIS").8 Id. § 617.9(a)(5).
On or about January 3, 1994, the Diocese submitted an EAF to the Village and an application to change applicable zoning to permit the Diocese to develop a cemetery, to be known as the Queen of Peace Cemetery ("QOP"), on approximately 97 acres in the Village (the "Property") that the Diocese had contracted to buy. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 55.) On March 21, 1995, the Diocese became the fee owner of the Property. (Id. ¶ 57.) On or about April 10, 1995, the Diocese formally retained Grever & Ward, Inc. ("Ward") to advise it on the development of its property for use as a cemetery. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 58.) On July 10, 1995, Ward provided the Diocese with a Master General Plan that depicted the use of 86 of the 97.3 acres as a cemetery. (Id. ¶ 61.)
On October 17, 1995, the Village Planner, David J. Portman of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. ("FPC") issued a report that the Diocese's proposed development of QOP constituted a commercial enterprise or business use of property that was inconsistent with the Village's comprehensive plan. (ASC9 ¶ 62.) Following receipt of further public comment on the Diocese's application, on March 18, 1996, the Board passed a Resolution denying the Diocese's application, concluding that the proposed QOP was not a religious use of real property. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 66.)
On April 17, 1996, the Diocese commenced an action in Suffolk County Supreme Court ("State Court Action") against the Village and its Board based on eleven causes of action, including due process violations, exclusionary zoning claims, a free exercise violation, discrimination, denial of equal protection, and failure to accommodate a religious use. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 67.) On September 16, 1996, the court denied the Diocese's claim for injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 68.) The court also denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that the issue of whether the Diocese's proposed cemetery was a religious use presented a factual question to be resolved at trial. (Id. ¶ 69.)
On December 28, 1998, the Second Department affirmed the trial court's decision that the determination of whether the Diocese's proposed cemetery is a religious use presented a factual question. (Id. ) However, it reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment for the Village on the second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth counts, holding that the Diocese's free exercise, discrimination, equal protection, and exclusionary zoning claims were without merit. (Id. ) Following a trial in Supreme Court, on November 9, 2000, the court held that a Catholic cemetery is a "religious use" of property under New York law, and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Board with instructions to issue a special permit to allow the Diocese to develop a cemetery on the Property. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 77.) That ruling was made part of a Judgment entered on January 16, 2001.10
Less than three months later, on March 19, 2001, the Board enacted a series of comprehensive zoning amendments ("2001 Amendments"), including the POW Law, codified as Code § 216–111.2. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 81.) The POW Law and the history of its enactment are discussed infra.
On April 15, 2002, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court's conclusion regarding a cemetery being a "religious use" of property, but found that the "trial court erred in directing the defendant Board ... to issue a special permit to the Diocese upon remittitur." (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 82.) The Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Board to determine the environmental impact of the Diocese's proposed development of QOP "including examination under SEQRA of the effect of any possible mitigating measures." (I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- W.D. v. Rockland Cnty.
- Lombardo v. Town of Hempstead
-
Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Vill. of Old Westbury
... ... in Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Center v ... Islamic Cmty. Ctr. for Mid Westchester v. City of Yonkers ... ...
- Swartz v. Sylvester