Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Religion Clause

Religion & Law

: Religion Clause

Hasidic Congregation Gets Reversal of Damage Award, But Loses On Other Issues

By Howard M. Friedman

This week, a New York appellate court handed down a decision in a dispute between two neighboring Orthodox Jewish congregations in Kiryas Joel (NY), a town populated primarily by members of the Satmar Hasidic community. A bit or reading between the lines is necessary to understand the disputes that were ruled on by the court in Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, (NY App. Div., Sept. 22, 2009). (It is not clear whether this case is part of a larger leadership battle within the Satmar movement.)

It appears that originally the 3,000-member Congregation Yetev Lev ("CYL") owned a synagogue building, surrounding parking lots and a nearby residence that was used as living quarters by its rabbi. In some fashion, Bais Yoel Ohel Feige ("BYOF") took ownership of the residence and began to use it as a synagogue. It also filed a suit under Art. 15 of New York's Real Property Actions & Proceedings Law to confirm its ownership of the premises. CYL brought several counterclaims. One asserted that BYOF's use of the property violated the town's zoning code. The appellate court agreed and upheld a trial court's injunction because the zoning code, as amended in 2007, requires a site plan review by the Village Zoning Board for operating a place of worship in a residence.

The appellate court however reversed the trial court's award of nearly $745,000 in damages on another counterclaim by CYL which complained that individuals attending services at BYOF had continuously used CYL's parking area. The appellate court concluded that there was no evidence that BYOF had instructed its members where to park and that, in any event, CYL had not put up signs attempting to restrict who could use its lots. Also testimony as to how many BYOF members parked there was speculative. Finally the appellate court held that CYL retained an implied easement to access the basement and roof of the residence area to install and repair water, sewer and utility lines and HVAC equipment that apparently served CYL's building. [Thanks to Y.Y. Landa for the lead.]

Full post as published by Religion Clause on September 25, 2009 (boomark / email).