Plaintiffs May Proceed On Some Claims Charging Anti-Hasidic Motivation In Obstructing Construction

In Bloomingburg Jewish Educational Center v. Village of Bloomingburg, New York, (SD NY, June 9, 2015), a New York federal district court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with some of their claims that local governments and public officials of the Village of Bloomingburg and the Town of Mamakating took various actions to prevent Hasidic Jews from moving into the area.  The court held that two of the plaintiffs

have stated plausible claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against [various] defendants ... based on these defendants’ alleged roles in stymying the conversion of a property in Bloomingburg into a mikvah, a bath used by Hasidic Jews for ritual immersion and purification.  Plaintiff Sullivan Farms II, Inc. has stated plausible claims for relief under § 1983, § 1985, and the FHA ...  against [certain] defendants based on these defendants’ alleged roles in obstructing the completion of a housing development project known as Chestnut Ridge.

A number of other of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.  AP reports on the decision.

Court Orders Another Election For Small Church's Board

In Rock Church, Inc. v. Venigalla, (NY York Co. Sup. Ct., May 14, 2015), a New York state trial court rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction over a disputed election in a small church whose some 30 members were split over whether to fire its pastor after his decision to reduce the number of Sunday services from two to one. The court had previously ordered that a meeting be held to elect a full Board.  This suit challenges the validity of that election in which the faction opposing the pastor was voted into office after a third vote at which the pastor's supporters claim numerous non-members voted. The court said in part:

If this matter required the a weighing of an individual's fitness for membership in the Church, and a decision as to whether or not that individual met the criteria for membership, including investigation into the depth of his or her religious convictions, it would be clear that the matter would be beyond this court's subject matter jurisdiction. But, the matter actually turns on a matter of contract. In the present matter, through its by-laws, the Church's contract as to how the Church will conduct its business, the Church has already decided how members are to be determined. Under the Church's by-laws, it is up to the pastor, and only the pastor, to determine who is to be a member of the Church....

Since Pastor Impaglia ... attests that the third vote taken on October 5, 2014, was taken largely among nonmembers, who cannot vote for trustees, it follows that the final vote taken on October 5, 2014, which put respondents in power, was illegal under the Church's By-Laws, and is void. As said, the matter is one of pure contract interpretation, and therefore involves only the application by this court of a "neutral principle of law."

The court held that another vote held the same day purporting to elect the pastor's supporters was also void, and ordered the church to hold another special meeting.

New York MTA Bans All Issue Advertising After Court Orders Acceptance of Anti-Islam Ad

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority yesterday adopted a resolution barring all political  and issue advertising on subways and buses.  The move comes in response to a federal district court's ruling last week requiring the Authority to accept an ad that refers to "killing Jews" as part of Islam's jihad. (See prior posting.) According to CBS New York, MTA's general counsel explained that "Advertisements expressing viewpoint messages, regardless of the viewpoint being expressed, would no longer be accepted." Opposing the ban, an ACLU spokesman said: "The New York City transit system is our public square."  However MTA board member Charles Moerdler argued that the MTA "is a transportation agency, it is not an agency that provides a platform for hatemongers."

Ramapo Villages Officials Cleared of Discrimination Claims Growing Out of Zoning Fight

In Bernstein v. Village of Wesley Hills, (SD NY, March 27, 2015), a New York federal district court rejected religious discrimination claims growing out of a chapter in the long battle between Hasidic residents and others in parts of Rockland County, New York. As recounted by the court:

Plaintiffs are religious corporations and individuals affiliated with the Chofetz Chaim sect of Orthodox Judaism, and they allege an interest in the operation of Kiryas Radin, a religious educational institution and center for religious activity and prayer, located on 4.7 acres of unincorporated land in the Town of Ramapo....

The heart of Plaintiffs’ case is their allegation that Defendants [village officials] colluded to file the Chestnut Ridge Action—which claimed, in relevant part, that Ramapo’s environmental review of Kiryas Radin prior to its approval was insufficient under state law—for discriminatory reasons. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, “[h]iding behind a false façade as protectors of the environment . . . utilized municipal government authority to advance their campaign against the spread of Orthodox Jewery in the Town of Ramapo.” ...

By Plaintiffs’ own admission, their claims at this stage of the litigation are dependent on their allegation that Defendants did not bring legal challenges against development projects that were, other than not being run by members of the Hasidic community, similar to Kiryas Radin in all material respects.

The court however concluded that the non-Hasidic development projects which were not challenged were not similar to Kiryas Radin. It also concluded that plaintiffs had not shown discriminatory intent on the part of the defendants:

Having lived and worked with residents and officials from the Villages during these many years, Plaintiffs firmly believe that they have been targeted because of their religious beliefs, even if they cannot point to discriminatory statements by Defendants. The Court is sympathetic: who would know better than the Parties in this case whether the current dispute is a product of the decades-long tension between the Hasidic community and the Villages of Ramapo? However ... [b]ecause Plaintiffs have offered almost no evidence in support of their claims, and certainly not enough to raise a contested issue of material fact, the Court must grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants.

2nd Circuit OK's Differential Child Protection Requirements In Public and Private Schools

In U.L. v. New York State Assembly, (2d Cir., Feb. 5, 2015), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a minor student enrolled in a Nassau county yeshiva and by her father claiming that students' equal protection, due process and free exercise rights are violated  by the state legislature's exclusion of private schools (including religious schools) from some of the state child protection requirements that are mandatory in public schools. (See prior posting). The district court dismissed on sovereign and legislative immunity grounds.  The 2nd Circuit in affirming and refusing to allow plaintiffs to replead the case said:

Assuming U.L. could successfully plead around the immunity doctrines, his claims would still fail as a matter of law. The challenged child-protection laws, which are unquestionably secular, are equally inapplicable to all private schools, religious and secular. Nothing about them offends the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment....

U.L.’s claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment likewise fail, because the laws neither target a suspect class nor impair the exercise of a fundamental right, and easily pass muster under rational basis review.

[Thanks to Elliot Pasik for the lead.]

2nd Circuit Upholds New York's Compulsory Vaccination Requirements

In Phillips v. City of New York, (2d Cir., Jan 7, 2015), the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York's requirement that, subject to medical and religious exemptions, all children be vaccinated before attending public school. It relied largely on the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts to dispose of substantive due process objections.  The court also upheld, over free exercise objections, New York's regulation allowing officials to temporarily exclude students who are exempted from the vaccination requirement on religious grounds from school during an outbreak of a vaccine‐preventable disease. Quoting dicta in a 1944 Supreme Court decision, it held that the state could have imposed a vaccination requirement with no exemptions, so the more limited exclusion of those with an exemption during disease outbreaks is likewise constitutional. The court went on to reject equal protection and 9th Amendment arguments as well.  Education Week reports on the decision. New York Times reports that plaintiffs will seek Supreme Court review in the case.

Neo-Pagan Group Gets NY Property Tax Exemption

In In the Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc., v. McCoy. (NY Ct. App., Nov. 18, 2014), New York's highest court, in a brief opinion, affirmed the decision of an appellate court that a neo-Pagan group is entitled to a tax exemption for property in the Town of Catskill that includes a 12-bedroom house, a caretaker's cottage, several outbuildings and an outdoor temple. The Court of Appeals said:

The Appellate Division properly granted the petitions. Petitioner adequately established its entitlement to the RPTL 420-a exemption, as the proof at the trial established that petitioner "exclusively" utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Court Will Not Decide Validity of Vote In Challenge By Excommunicated Members of Buddhist Temple

In Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Association, (NY App., Nov. 13, 2013), a New York state intermediate appeals court, in a 4-1 decision, refused to order a Buddhist Temple to hold a membership meeting with a receiver determining those eligible to vote. The dissent described the facts as follows:

Respondent Mew Fung Chen (Master Chen) excommunicated not only the three petitioners but a total of 517 members, representing all the congregants of the Manhattan chapter of the CBA and a majority of the CBA's members, 10 days before the special meeting called by the two unauthorized trustees appointed by Master Chen. Thus, he deprived the Manhattan congregants of their right to vote on the agenda of the meeting which, in effect, resulted in the transfer of control of all properties and assets of the CBA to Master Chen. Only 110 members of the Queens faction of the CBA, all supporters of Master Chen, were given notice of the special meeting. 

The majority held, however:

At first blush the petition appears to present a straightforward issue of corporate governance, specifically whether various corporate actions, including a meeting held in May 2011, were improperly taken, thereby depriving petitioners of their right to participate in those events.... We hold, however, that because petitioners are not members of the CBA based upon Master Chen's excommunication of them, they cannot challenge these corporate actions.... Petitioners contend that their excommunication was completely motivated by Master Chen's desire to squelch the simmering underlying dispute over ownership of real property in Manhattan and Queens where the CBA owns temples. Even where the parties' dispute concerns control of church property, the court will not intervene in matters that are predominantly religious disagreements...

Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Says Students Can Proceed With Claims of Anti-Semitic Harassment At School

In T.E. v. Pine Bush Central School District, (SD NY, Nov. 4, 2014), a New York federal district court refused to dismiss claims by three Jewish students that they suffered extensive anti-Semitic harassment from fellow-students while attending elementary school, middle school and high school. In a 76-page opinion, the court allowed students to proceed against the school district and various school officials in their individual capacities with claims under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment and the New York Civil Rights Law. Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

New York's Top Court OKs Marriage With Half-Niece

In Nguyen v. Holder, (NY Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2014), the New York Court of Appeals-- the state's highest court--  answering a question certified to it by the Second Circuit, held that a marriage between a man and his half-niece (i.e. between a woman and her mother's half-brother) is not void as incestuous under the state's Domestic Relations Law. The issue arose in an immigration proceeding involving a woman who claimed permanent residency status by reason of her marriage to an American citizen.  New York Post reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]

Court Rules In Kiryas Joel Voting Inspector Challenge

Photo News and Failed Messiah report on a New York state trial court decision handed down this week in Convers v. County of Orange, (Dutchess Cty. Sup. Ct., Oct. 21, 2014) (Docket). The case grows out of ongoing friction between the largely Satmar Hasidic Jewish village of Kiryas Joel and residents of the surrounding town of Monroe. Apparently after the citizens' group United Monroe complained that voters at polling places in Kiryas Joel were being bullied into voting for candidates supported by the Kiryas Joel Satmar Rebbe (the village's religious leader), the Board of Elections approved six outside voting inspectors.  However, five days before the Sept. 4 primary, the appointment of the voting inspectors was rescinded without formal explanation, and the would-be inspectors sued. The Board has variously cited cultural differences, or failure to obtain approval of the Republican voting commissioner, as the basis for the inspectors' removal.  Justice Maria Rosa this week ruled that the inspectors' removal was arbitrary and capricious, and they should be reappointed. However she did not require that they be assigned to Kiryas Joel. Justice Rosa did rule that inspectors could not be assigned on the basis of religion. Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus reacted saying that if outside inspectors are to be appointed, it should be done county-wide, rather than targeting Kiryas Joel.

NY Top Court Hears Arguments Over Tax Exemption For Land of Pagan Group

Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals-- the state's highest court-- heard oral arguments in Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater, Inc. v McCoy.  At issue is whether a neo-Pagan group is entitled to a tax exemption for a piece of property that includes a 12-bedroom house that was formerly an inn, a caretaker's cottage, several outbuildings and an outdoor temple.  The major disagreement is over whether the property is used primarily for religious purposes, as the state intermediate appellate court held (full text of opinion), or whether it is used primarily for residential purposes as the Town of Catskill and the trial court concluded. (See prior posting.) The Albany Times-Union reports on yesterday's arguments. A webcast of the oral arguments will be posted here by the Court next week.

Lawsuit Seeks To Stop Use of Chickens In Pre-Yom Kippur Ceremony

BNC reported yesterday that a lawsuit has been filed in a New York state trial court seeking to enjoin to enjoin Brooklyn Jewish residents from organizing, conducting or participating in the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaporos using live chickens. The chickens are slaughtered after use in a ceremony seeking to atonemnet for one's sins.  The suit, filed by an organization known as Alliance to End Chickens As Kaporos, was prompted by concern that thousands of chickens are shipped into Brooklyn for the ceremony each year and many are left starving for days and found dead.  Many Jews use coins that are contributed to the poor in the ritual instead of chickens.

Federal Court Says State Court Should Act First In Challenge To Eruv Zoning Decisions

East End Eruv Association v. Town of Southampton, (ED NY, Sept. 24, 2014), is the latest decision by a New York federal district court in challenges to the refusal by Long Island towns to permit a Jewish organization to construct an eruv.  The court held that the claim that zoning authorities acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying an appeal and a variance should be decided in state court, and that plaintiffs' other five claims should be stayed pending that decision.  In a related decision, on the same day in the same case, the court refused to allow an organization known as Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv to intervene in the case.

NY Farm Fined For Denying Its Wedding Facilities For Same-Sex Wedding

In McCarthy v. Liberty Ridge Farm, LLC, (NY Div. Human Rights, Aug. 8, 2014), the New York State Divsion of Human Rights levied a $10,000 civil fine and awarded compensatory damages of $3,000 in a proceeding against a farm that adversises itself as a venue for weddings, but which refused to contract with the two women complainants for them to use the facilities for their same-sex wedding. The Division held that the discrimination violated the public accommodation provisions of the New York Human Rights Law.  Respondents were also required to take steps to prevent future discrimination.  The Albany Times-Union reported on the decision.

Christian Teacher Loses Suit Challenging Required Removal of Religious Postings In Classroom

In Silver v. Cheektowage Central School District, (WD NY, June 24, 2014), a New York federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of the discrimination claims brought by a Christian high school science teacher who was required to take down from her classroom her display of several Bible verses, other statements about God and a picture of three crosses on a hill. She was also told to prevent guest speakers from promoting religion.  The court rejected teacher Joelle Silver's Establishment Clause and free speech claims and most of her equal protection claims, saying that the school has authority to take action to avoid litigation claiming Establishment Clause violations.  The court also characterized as "inapposite" the teacher's comparison of her displays to those by the school social worker that were designed to create a welcoming environment for LGBT students. The court however recommended permitting plaintiff to proceed with a claim that school policies relating to her role as advisor to the student Bible Study Club were selectively enforced. News 4 reports on the decision. American Freedom Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Allows Eruv In Long Island Town

In Verizon New York, Inc. v. Village of Westhampton Beach, (ED NY, June 16, 2014), a New York federal magistrate judge gave at least a partial victory to the East End Eruv Association, a Jewish organization that is attempting to place an eruv in Suffolk County, New York. An eruv is a symbolic boundary, marked off with plastic strips (lechis) on telephone poles. Observant Jews may carry items within the eruv on the Sabbath without violating Jewish religious law.  In this case, Verizon and Long Island Lighting Co. granted the Association the right to use their poles for an eruv, but three municipalities objected.  The utilities sued for a declaration that they had the right to allow use of their poles for this purpose.  This opinion ultimately dealt with only one of the municipalities-- Westhampton Beach.  The court concluded that the utilities' franchise agreements do not limit their authority permit the eruv; the Transportation Corporations Law and the LIPA Act provide authority for the utilities to enter contracts for use of their poles; while Westhampton has authority to regulate utility poles owned by the utilities, it has not passed any regulations that prohibit attaching lechis to the poles.  27East and Jewish Week report  on the decision.

EEOC Sues Claiming Company Required Employees To Engage In Religious Activities

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit yesterday in a New York federal district court against Syosset, N.Y.-based United Health Programs of America and its parent corporation for forcing employees to take part in religious activities in the workplace.  According to the EEOC, since 2007 employees have been required to participate in:

group prayers, candle burning, and discussions of spiritual texts. The religious practices are part of a belief system that the defendants' family member created, called "Onionhead." Employees were told wear Onionhead buttons, pull Onionhead cards to place near their work stations and keep only dim lighting in the workplace. None of these practices was work-related. When employees opposed taking part in these religious activities or did not participate fully, they were terminated.

New York Daily News has more on the lawsuit.

Mexican Destination Wedding Using Internet-Ordained Clergy Did Not Create Lawful New York Marriage

In Ponorovskaya v. Stecklow, (NY County Sup. Ct., May 29, 2014), a New York state trial court dismissed a divorce action, finding that the parties were never legally married.  At issue was what the court described as:

a license-less marriage supposedly solemnized in what can only be described as a "pseudo-Jewish" wedding ceremony conducted at a Mexican beach resort by a New York dentist who became a Universal Life Church minister on the internet solely for the purpose of performing weddings for friends and relatives.

The wife who was suing for divorce claimed that even though the ceremony was invalid under Mexican law, the parties were still married because  New York Domestic Relations Law §25 provides in part:

Nothing in this article ... shall be construed to render void by reason of a failure to procure a marriage license  any  marriage  solemnized  between  persons of full age....

However the court held that "DRL § 25 should be construed to apply to weddings that take place outside of New York State only under the most extraordinary of circumstances."

The court went on to discuss, but not decide, whether the marriage was properly solemnized:

These provisions call into question whether a person like Dr. Arbeitman, the dentist/Universal Life Church minister who conducted the ceremony here, is a "clergyman" or "minister" under New York law and thus authorized to officiate at weddings.....

Whether the ULC is a church or not, and whatever its belief system may be, compared to other online "religions" that enable people to pay a small fee, obtain a certificate of ordination and then perform religious wedding ceremonies, it seems practically mainstream. There is, for instance, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a religious group comprised of atheists, which, upon the payment of a $20 fee, will make an online applicant a "pastafarian minister." Then there is Dudeism, also referred to the Church of the Latter Day Dude, which portends to be a religious philosophy based on the protagonist in the Coen Brothers' cult classic The Big Lebowski. One can be ordained online for free and be authorized to perform weddings as a Dudeist Priest.

Fortunately, this court need not wade into the treacherous waters of attempting to determine what is a "real" religion and what is not, something that would seem to "necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice".... Given the finding that ... the parties' purported marriage is invalid because it was "an absolute nullity" under the law of the jurisdiction where it took place, it is not of great moment whether Dr. Arbeitman was legally entitled under New York law to solemnize the marriage. 

New York's Top Court Vacates Some of the Convictions In Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy

In People v. Golb, (NY Ct. App., May 13, 2014), New York's Court of Appeals (its highest appellate court) dismissed some, but not all, of the convictions growing out of a dispute over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As explained by the court:

Norman Golb, defendant's father, is a professor at the University of Chicago, and a scholar on the subject of the Scrolls. There is disagreement among scholars and experts about who wrote the Scrolls. One view, known as the Qumran-Sectarian theory, or Sectarian theory, is that the Scrolls were writings of a Jewish sect, living in or near Qumran. Norman Golb and others disagree.... They believe that the Scrolls were writings of various groups and that the writings were rescued from libraries in Jerusalem and brought to the caves for safekeeping at the time of the siege and sacking of the city by Roman troops in 70 C.E. (the Jerusalem libraries theory).

Defendant Raphael Golb, Professor Norman Golb's son, decided to defend his father's academic views through an Internet campaign attacking the integrity and reputation of academics and scholars who disagreed with his father's theory. According to the court, to accomplish this:

defendant, using pseudonyms and impersonating real academics and scholars, sent emails to museum administrators, academics and reporters. He published anonymous blogs. He concocted an elaborate scheme in which he used a pseudonym to engage one professor in an email exchange, and then impersonated a different scholar to criticize that professor's emails. Defendant impersonated a New York University (NYU) professor and sent emails to NYU students and NYU deans indicating that the professor had plagiarized the work of Professor Golb.

The court affirmed most of the criminal impersonation convictions of defendant,  but vacated the convictions based on the mere creation of false e-mail accounts that were never used. The court vacated defendant's convictions for aggravated harassment, finding that Penal Law § 240.30(1) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court upheld defendant's convictions for forgery, but vacated his convictions for unauthorized use of a computer and identity theft.

Chief Judge Lippman dissented in part, arguing that the entire indictment should be dismissed.  Capital New York reports on the decision.