Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills
815 F. Supp. 2d 679
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Religious plaintiffs challenge zoning and land-use actions by four Ramapo villages (Wesley Hills, Pomona, Chestnut Ridge, Montebello) and officials over Kiryas Radin Nike Site; amended complaint adds Sofer, Tesher, Beatrice Zaks, Sima Zaks, and David Goldsmith as defendants.
- Plaintiffs allege discriminatory establishment of zoning and litigation practices targeting Hasidic Jews, asserting First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, FHA claims, NY constitutions, and NY Civil Rights Law claims.
- Mosdos and YCC previously had standing issues and were barred from pursuing compulsory counterclaims in Chestnut Ridge Action; Amended Complaint expands party and adds new claims including facial and as-applied challenges to zoning.
- Court addresses standing, Noerr-Pennington immunity, selective-treatment equal-protection theory, and whether Noerr-Pennington immunity extends to municipal litigation activity; procedural posture includes Rule 12(b)(6) review and requests to amend.
- Court notes that Chestnut Ridge Action involved a challenge to Ramapo’s ASHL under Article 78; Nike Site located in Ramapo outside village borders; Nike Site was subject to state court TRO affecting individual plaintiffs’ ability to study at Kiryas Radin.
- Remaining claims focus on individual plaintiffs against Village Defendants in official capacity related to Chestnut Ridge Action; Mosdos and YCC claims against Village and Individual Defendants in official capacities dismissed; NY State law claims against Pomona based on notice-of-claim requirements are dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge zoning and Chestnut Ridge Action | Mosdos/YCC had injury-in-fact from being unable to operate Nike Site; Bernstein/Ambers have standing to live/study at Kiryas Radin. | Plaintiffs lacked direct link between Nike Site and village zoning; Nike Site not within village jurisdiction. | Standing to challenge Chestnut Ridge Action and zoning properly pled at this stage. |
| Noerr-Pennington immunity and selective petitioning | Defendants pursued Chestnut Ridge Action with discriminatory intent against Hasidic Jews. | Municipal petitioning deserves immunity; selective-petitioning claims require showing of disparate treatment. | Selective-petitioning claim survives to the extent plausibly shown; immunity does not blanket discriminatory selective litigation. |
| Class of one vs selective enforcement standard for similarly situated comparators | Eight comparators are plausibly similar; they were not opposed despite similar environmental concerns. | Comparators differ in land use/type; not sufficiently similar. | Court uses a less stringent similarity standard for selective-treatment claims, finding plausibility that comparators are similar. |
| Notice of claim and state-law claims timing | State-law claims may be timely or not depending on notice requirements. | State-law claims require notice of claim; many claims barred for lack of notice. | New York notice-of-claim requirements apply to state-law claims; some claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of timely notice; federal claims not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; requires enough facts to raise entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; claims must be plausible)
- Neilson v. D’Angelis, 409 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2005) (class-of-one similarity standard; extremely high similarity required)
- Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (overruled Neilson/Skehan on related issues; clarifies class-of-one context)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (classifications not viable for public-employment-like contexts; limits class-of-one in some settings)
- Skehan v. Village of Mamaroneck, 465 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (discusses selective-enforcement/ class-of-one in Second Circuit)
- Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006) (examines similarity of comparators in land-use context)
- Ruston v. Town Bd. of Skaneateles, 610 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies similarity standards post-Iqbal; land-use context)
- Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (similarity standard in selective enforcement cases; discretion in evaluating comparators)
- Third Church of Christ Scientist v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 667 (2d Cir. 2010) (land-use and comparator analysis under different regimes; relevant to approvals and comparators)