Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA), has been a controversial statute, particularly among small municipalities. The federal statute prohibits implementation of a land use regulation “in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious … institution,” unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (a)(1). The broad and somewhat vague definition of religious exercise in the statute has invited much litigation over what constitutes a substantial burden and even what constitutes religious exercise. The statute’s definition “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C 2000cc-5(7)(A).
By Alexander Lycoyannis
In Kuzmich et al. v 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, the Court of Appeals held that apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL §421-g) are not eligible for luxury deregulation under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), unlike most other rent-stabilized apartments.
By Stewart Sterk
Former Owners Not Entitled to Surplus from Tax Foreclosure Sale,br>
Joint Tenants Need Not Own Equal Interests
Fraud Action Not Premature Merely Because Truth of Representations Are the Subject of Pending Proceedings
Transferee from Incapacitated Person’s Attorney-In-Fact Not A Bona Fide Purchaser
By Stewart Sterk
Mining Prohibition Not Pre-Empted By State Law and Not In Violation of SEQRA
Dog Training Facility Not a Customary Home Occupation,br>
Landowner Not Entitled to Variance When Hardship Is Not Unique to the Parcel
ZBA Did Not Consider Statutory Variance Factors
By Stewart Sterk
Action Dismissed When Unit Owners Did Not Allege Wrongful Actions Outside Scope of Board Member’s Duty As Board Member
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
