95 F. Supp. 3d 547
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (religious corporation Mosdos and Individual Plaintiffs affiliated with the Chofetz Chaim sect) alleged the Villages (Wesley Hills, Chestnut Ridge, Montebello, Pomona) and officials colluded to sue Ramapo over approval of Kiryas Radin (a 60-unit yeshiva/residential campus) to block Orthodox/Hasidic expansion. Plaintiffs claimed this was discriminatory and violated federal and state civil‑rights laws.
- The Villages brought the state SEQRA suit (Chestnut Ridge Action) challenging Ramapo’s environmental review of the ASHL and Kiryas Radin; that litigation temporarily enjoined completion but eventually failed on appeal. Mosdos (owner of the Nike Site) counterclaimed in state court and removed/remanded matters to federal court; the cases were later consolidated.
- This decision arises on cross‑motions for summary judgment addressing the surviving 2008 Action claims and Mosdos’s counterclaims in the Chestnut Ridge Action after fact discovery closed.
- Court applied Noerr‑Pennington to the Villages’ filing of the state suit (petitioning immunity), holding petitioning generally immune but defeasible if plaintiffs prove the suit was a pretext for unconstitutional discrimination (Equal Protection selective‑treatment theory).
- Plaintiffs’ selective‑treatment Equal Protection theory depended on proof that (1) similarly‑situated comparator projects were treated differently and (2) the Villages acted with discriminatory intent; discovery produced an expert planning report and deposition testimony but little direct evidence that the Villages knew of or consciously ignored comparators or made discriminatory decisions.
- The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all surviving federal and state claims (qualified immunity/Noerr‑Pennington, §1981/1982/1983/1985, RLUIPA, FHA, New York Civil Rights Law), denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and denied Mosdos leave to amend counterclaims for damages as untimely and prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing the Chestnut Ridge Action is immune under Noerr‑Pennington or subject to liability if motivated by discrimination | Mosdos: immunity defeated because the Villages used SEQRA litigation as pretext to target Orthodox/Hasidic uses | Villages: petitioning is protected; no evidence shows selective enforcement or invidious motive | Court: Noerr‑Pennington applies; Plaintiffs failed to show similarly‑situated comparators or discriminatory intent; immunity stands → summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Plaintiffs identified similarly‑situated comparator projects and that Defendants were aware of them | Plaintiffs: several multifamily projects were similar in size/impact (water, sewer, traffic, community character) and were not sued | Defendants: comparators differ materially (location, adjacent land use, road capacity, zoning); most Villages lacked notice of those projects pre‑construction | Court: Plaintiffs produced insufficient admissible evidence of similarity or of Defendants’ notice; no reasonable jury could find comparators similarly situated → summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether filing the Chestnut Ridge Action violated RLUIPA (land‑use regulation or "government practice") | Mosdos: SEQRA was used as a pretext for land‑use control; RLUIPA should cover actions that have extraterritorial land‑use effects | Villages: RLUIPA protects against local land‑use regulation/implementation by the involved agency; Villages were interested agencies suing Ramapo and did not impose or implement SEQRA | Court: RLUIPA does not reach the Villages’ lawsuit challenging another municipality’s SEQRA review; counterclaims fail → summary judgment for Defendants |
| Whether Mosdos’s counterclaims are justiciable and whether amendment for damages should be allowed | Mosdos: has standing and seeks damages; consolidation of cases and prior proceedings justify amendment | Villages: counterclaims are moot as Kiryas Radin is completed; Mosdos delayed and amendment would prejudice Defendants | Court: Mosdos had standing at filing, but counterclaims seeking injunctive/declaratory relief are moot; request to amend for damages denied as unduly delayed and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills, 701 F. Supp. 2d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Noerr‑Pennington and standard for defeating petitioning immunity by showing selective, discriminatory litigation)
- Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills, 815 F. Supp. 2d 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (motion‑to‑dismiss stage treatment of comparator pleading and selective‑treatment elements)
- Fortress Bible Church v. Feiner, 694 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2012) (when SEQRA review functions as land‑use regulation under RLUIPA)
- Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1995) (elements of selective‑treatment equal‑protection claim)
- Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Village of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (similarly‑situated comparator analysis in equal‑protection context)
- LaTrieste Rest. v. Village of Port Chester, 188 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1999) (knowledge/notice requirement for selective‑enforcement claims)
- LeBlanc‑Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1995) (use of historical background and statements in motive inquiry)
- Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) (definition of environmental negative declaration/SEQRA context)
- Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County, Inc. v. Litchfield Historic Dist. Comm’n, 768 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (RLUIPA’s equal terms/nondiscrimination analysis)