In Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York, (ED NY, Oct. 30, 2025), a New York federal district court granted partial summary judgment to a Lubavitch organization that wants to build a Chabad House on land in Old Westbury. Plaintiffs allege that the Village has thwarted their efforts by enacting a discriminatory Places of Worship zoning law. The court said in part:
On a full summary judgment record, the case for the facial infirmity of the POW [Places of Worship] Law has been strengthened. ... The record now available demonstrates many more ways in which the POW Law treats religious development less favorably than comparable secular land uses. Thus, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion, denies defendant’s motion, and declares the POW Law facially invalid under the United States Constitution....
Given the irresponsible and misleading arguments lodged by defense counsel in its filings, which border on contumacious, the Court considered striking the defendant’s motion. However, considering the seeming interminability of this case, the motion will be resolved if only to avoid further delay. Furthermore, despite weighty submissions, defendant’s motion can be easily dispatched....
It has been almost seventeen years since this matter was filed. In its last major decision in this case, this Court declared as follows:
The allegations raise serious issues of constitutional magnitude, and this matter has lingered far too long. That ends now. Counsel will be expected to work diligently to bring this matter to resolution—in whatever form that might occur—with all deliberate speed....
Two more years of litigation, and the matter remains at this unsatisfactory juncture: the Court has now determined that the Village enacted a discriminatory law in violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs still have been unable to construct their Chabad. Still more legal battles, costs and delays lie ahead.
It would behoove all involved to work together to reach a satisfactory resolution of this matter. Given its history, the undersigned cannot reasonably hold out much hope.
In a footnote, the court described the difficult issues on computation of damages that remain:
... [C]ounsel represents that “from 1999 to 2020 [plaintiffs] lost more than $15 million in pledged donor commitments,” while “Rabbi Konikov’s lost earnings and benefits . . . exceed $5 million.”... As these figures include a time frame that predates the filing of litigation by nearly a decade, may well include speculative matters and, at a high level, would suggest double-counting, it is clear that, should the litigation proceed to that stage, the risks and costs will be substantial.
