2015 WL 5178126
E.D.N.Y.2015Background
- The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre owns ~97 acres and sought to develop the Queen of Peace Cemetery (QOP) in the Incorporated Village of Old Westbury; the Village approved a conditional Resolution in 2010 imposing extensive restrictions under a 2001 "Places of Worship" (POW) zoning law.
- The Diocese sued, asserting RLUIPA claims (substantial burden; equal terms), First Amendment free exercise, § 1983 claims (retaliation; unlawful warrantless search), and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection; motions for summary judgment followed.
- The POW Law (2001) permits places of worship by special exception in residential districts but imposes conditions (large lot minimums, deep setbacks, low coverage, limits on irrigation/sprinkling, natural area requirements, frontage and access rules, height limits, parking ratios).
- The Village enacted the 2001 amendments after a 1999 moratorium, citing concerns about institutional uses (places of worship and private schools) and environmental/traffic impacts; the record contains lengthy SEQRA review and village consultant critiques of the Diocese’s DEIS/FEIS.
- The Board’s 2010 Resolution approving Diocese’s application added burdens beyond the POW Law (five‑year renewals, perimeter berms, third‑party landscapers, groundwater monitoring, deed restrictions, perpetual fee-shifting), which the Diocese contends effectively prevents use; the Diocese has not developed the cemetery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of POW Law under Free Exercise | POW Law targets "places of worship" and lacks secular meaning, so is non-neutral and unconstitutional on its face | POW Law is neutral and generally applicable; enacted to regulate institutional secondary effects and preserve residential character; rationally related to legitimate interests | POW Law is facially constitutional; law is neutral, generally applicable, and survives rational basis review |
| RLUIPA substantial-burden claim (as applied to 2010 Resolution) | Resolution’s conditions (renewals, large setbacks, reduced burial area, perpetual fees, onerous monitoring/maintenance) impose a substantial burden on religious exercise | Diocese voluntarily delayed development; no substantial burden because permit not denied; variances available | Summary judgment denied; material factual disputes exist about whether the Resolution imposes a substantial burden and whether restrictions are least-restrictive means |
| RLUIPA equal-terms claim | POW Law and/or its application treats religious institution (Diocese) less favorably than secular assemblies/institutions | No proper secular comparator identified; other institutions were regulated differently and many comparators are not similarly situated | Summary judgment for Defendants; Diocese failed to identify a sufficiently comparable secular institution treated more favorably |
| § 1983 retaliation and unlawful-search claims | Village retaliated for Diocese’s litigation (state and federal suits) by applying POW Law/Resolution and delaying SEQRA; Malatino conducted warrantless searches of the Property | POW Law development pre-dated State Court decision; actions were legitimate land-use/SEQRA oversight; Malatino did not enter property or acted with authority | Retaliation claim: summary judgment denied (genuine issues of retaliatory motive/timing). Unlawful search (Malatino): summary judgment denied (material dispute whether he entered property and lacked authority). Equal Protection claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religious practice must be neutral and generally applicable; nonneutral laws trigger strict scrutiny)
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws burdening religious practice reviewed under rational basis)
- Central Rabbinical Congress v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 763 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing neutrality/general applicability and underinclusiveness analysis)
- Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) (zoning denials and RLUIPA/substantial-burden analysis)
- Third Church of Christ, Scientist of New York City v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 667 (2d Cir. 2010) (RLUIPA equal-terms framework; need sufficiently comparable secular comparator)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (rational-basis review protects laws with rational relation to legitimate governmental purpose)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis standard described)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (land‑use regulation and governmental interest in preserving character)