Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Issues Relating to RLUIPA Safe Harbor and the Equal Protection Clause
Recently the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York grappled with issues relating to local zoning restrictions on houses of worship. In Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge v. Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, 19-CV-443 (KMK) (March 31, 2021), the court addressed the application of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), along with the Equal Protection Clause and a number of procedural issues relating to a motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are an organization and individuals of the Orthodox Jewish Faith, who have strict rules regarding the worship services they must attend and not riding in automobiles on the Sabbath. These various religious mandates require a central location for meals between services and a location within reasonable walking distance to the homes of the congregants, particularly as certain services are after dark and the Village of Chestnut Ridge has few areas with sidewalks. As of January 2019 the Village local laws (the Old Law) required that a house of worship be on no less than a five acre parcel. The only such parcel available in the Village was not centrally located and was prohibitively expensive for the small congregation. Therefore, the congregation rented temporary facilities it claimed were inadequate and caused the loss of congregants, due in part to the temporary nature of the facility. Further, there were claims related to various attempts by the Village to seek fines for alleged violations of the Old Law.
The Old Law did not permit religious uses in non-residential areas and required the issuance of a Special Permit from the Village Board, with no specified criteria for the granting of a Special Permit. Numerous other uses, such as museums, nursery schools, hotels, funeral chapels and commercial recreation facilities were allowed on lots of less than five acres and in non-residential zones. Those other uses were either allowed as of right or permitted as a Conditional Use with specified standards and not a Special Permit.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.