Source: http://www.cuthbertsonlaw.com/cemetery_law_blog?page=3
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:06:25+00:00

Document:
According to recent statistics, 62% of all U.S. households own a pet, leading to an increasing demand for cremated pet remains to be interred alongside their owners. In response, the New York State Assembly and Senate have passed a bill that allows cemeteries to provide such services, and details the requirements for such internments to take place. Should the bill be signed into law, it will give the option of interring pet cremated remains to all cemeteries that wish to provide the service.
The new bill adds two provisions to the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. § 1502(q) defines “pet cremated remains” as “ashes and/or other residue recovered after the completion of cremation of any domestic animal that has been adapted or tamed to live in intimate association with people where such cremation has occurred at a pet crematorium…” While this encompasses traditional pets like cats, dogs, or even horses, it seemingly excludes more exotic animals like large snakes.
The Governor now has until December 31, 2016 to sign the bill. Presumably, industry groups and the Division of Cemeteries will be weighing in during this time.
7 section seven hundred fifty-a of the general business law.
15 provide a list of approved charges for the interment of such remains.
18 remains must be disposed of by placing them in a grave, crypt, or niche.
25 corporated religious association or society.
26 § 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
For many cemeteries, the past decade has been a trying time, as a growing shift towards cremation over traditional burial has put cemeteries under increasing pressure financially. However, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland recently came up with an interesting solution to its struggles: planting vinyards.
Wine-making has a long history in California, and the Catholic Church itself played an important role, as Spanish missionaries are credited with bringing grapes and wine-making over from Europe in the 1700s. Yet it has only been in the past decade that the Church has begun adopting wine-making as a solution to its problems, both financial and aesthetic.
Planting grape vines has proven to be a boon at the three cemeteries that have adopted the practice. The financial cost savings were significant: planting an acre of grape vines cost nearly a third of what it would have costed to plant grass. It also served to cut the cemeteries water requirements, an important consideration in drought-plagued California. Finally, burial near the vines costs roughly 20% more than similar plots a short walk away, adding another source of revenue. The vines even changed the aesthetic of the cemetery, making it more visitor friendly and drawing local interest.
The grapes offered one more beneficial use: as the cemetery was owned by the Catholic Church, the grapes could be used to make alter wine for Mass and other religious ceremonies. However, the grapes’ surprisingly high quality has led to the creation of several batches of award-winning wine. While the wine-making itself is still a money-losing endeavor, the Church is expected to break even this coming year, and continues to donate thousands of bottles of alter wine each year to local churches.
It’s clear that what works for a religious cemetery in California may not translate to a cemetery in New York, but the real takeaway from this story is the importance of creativity. With a little imagination, there are a wide range of things cemeteries could try. For example, cemeteries could plant apple trees to provide shade, or use blueberry bushes as a type of screening. This is not to suggest that such changes would be a panacea for a cemetery’s financial struggles, but it can help brighten a cemetery’s appearance, draw greater interest from visitors, and possibly provide an incidental source of revenue.
The full article about this California cemetery can be found here.
On June 2, 2016, Mark Cuthbertson was the guest speaker at the Metropolitan Cemetery Association's Annual Meeting and Exposition. At the event, Mr. Cuthbertson gave a presentation on Selected Legal Topics for Cemeteries. The PowerPoint used in that presentation may be found here.
Oakwood Cemetery (“Oakwood”) is a not-for-profit cemetery that has operated a cemetery in the Village of Mount Kisco (“Village”) since 1883. In 2008, Oakwood applied for a building permit to build a crematory on the cemetery land. The application was denied, and Oakwood declined to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It filed a new application in February 2011, however the building inspector advised Oakwood that he could not consider its application because the Village's Board of Trustees (“Board”) was considering a proposed amendment to the Village Code that would affect the application. In June 2011, the Board amended the Village zoning code by adding to its “definitions” section that “cemetery” meant “Property used for the interring of the dead. This use shall not include facilities for cremation.” Oakwood then commenced a hybrid CPLR Article 78/declaratory judgment action claiming the amendment was preempted by Not–For–Profit Corporation Law (“NPCL”) §1502(d), which provides “[a] public mausoleum, crematory or columbarium shall be included within the term ‘cemetery.’” The Supreme Court granted the Village’s pre-answer motion to dismiss, and Oakwood appealed.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department found that the “although Not–for–Profit Corporation Law Article 15 governs the operation of corporations which own and manage cemeteries, it does not expressly preempt zoning ordinances relating to land use by cemeteries.” The Court also found there was no policy declaration or regulatory scheme evincing any such legislative intent. Accordingly, the NPCL did not preempt any attempt at local regulation of cemeteries under the “doctrine of field preemption.” The Court further found that the Village’s more restrictive definition of “cemetery” was not invalidated under the “doctrine of conflict preemption.” The NPCL definition of cemetery was addressed to the management of cemetery corporations and the scope of that law, while the Village Code’s definition addressed land use. As these different definitions were directed at differing purposes, there was not direct conflict.
The Court concluded its decision by affirming the lower court’s judgment, while amending it to the extent that absent any factual issues, it should have declared that the Village Code amendment was valid and not preempted by NPCL Article 15.
The case was Oakwood Cemetery v. Village/Town of Mount Kisco, 115 A.D.3d 749 (2d Dep’t 2014).
While the ultimate outcome of the case summarized below remains to be seen, it emphasizes that litigation under the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. ("RLUIPA") can be a powerful weapon for a religious cemetery faced with an obstructionist municipality. While a municipality maintains the right to adopt reasonable zoning regulations under most circumstances, overstepping its bounds may lead to significant damages and an award of attorney's fees for violating the cemetery's rights under RLUIPA.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Center ("the Diocese") has been in a protracted legal battle with the Village of Old Westbury ("Village") for nearly 20 years over its proposed cemetery. The Village Code did not permit the burial of human remains, so the Diocese applied for a zoning change. The application was denied in 1996 by the Board of Trustees of the Village ("Board") on the grounds it was a commercial operation. After the Diocese successfully litigated that the propsed cemetery was a religious use, the Board enacted a series of comprehensive zoning amendments, including a Places of Worship ("POW") Law.
After repeated delays in the approval process under the POW law, the Diocese filed suit alleging violations of the Constitution and RLUIPA. Several months later, the Board approved the proposal, subject to various restrictions including a requirement that approval was subject to renewal every 5 years, at which time the terms could be altered. The Court ruled on motions for summary judgment on September 3, 2015.
The Court found the POW Law was constitutional in that it validly regulated building area, height, setbacks from property lines, screening, and traffic circulation to mitigate the "adverse impacts of large institutional facilities on the residential nature of the Village." In addition, the law did not treat the plaintiffs differently from other religious institutions.
Next the Court addressed the RLUIPA claims that the POW law (1) created a substantial burden on the property's religious use, and (2) treated the plaintiff on "less than equal terms than a nonreligious assembly or institution." On the first claim, the Diocese argued the conditions were arbitrary and unreasonable, particularly the 5-year renewal provision, which undermined permanent burial. The Court found this claim was viable, but that whether the law was narrowly tailored was a matter for trial, thus denying summary judgment. For the second claim, RLUIPA requires the government to treat religious and non-religious institutions on "equal terms." However, the Second Circuit has ruled that different land use regimes can be legal, as different is not the same as unequal. Here, the court found the Diocese had failed to identify a comparable secular institution that was treated more favorably, and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the equal terms claim.
The case is cited as The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, v. The Incorporated Village Of Old Westbury, 2015 WL 5178126 (E.D.N.Y.).
Since the passage of the Not-for-Profit Revitalization Act ("NPRA"), cemeteries have been required to designate an Audit Committee consisting entirely of "Independent Directors" or the Board of Directors (only independent board members may deliberate or vote with respect to audit committee functions) to oversee their accounting and financial reporting practices. Added responsibilities are required of cemeteries with revenues over one million dollars.
While not required by NPRA, it is advisable to have at least one audit committee member with expertise in accounting and finance.
(3) review communications with those charged with governance (including a management letter) that result from the audit.
(3) annually review the performance and independence of the auditor.
(f) Periodically review the organization's insurance coverage.
A cemetery can adopt an Audit Committee Charter that outlines both the required responsibilities of the Audit Committee and the additional duties the Board of Directors can assign to the Audit Committee. The charter can serve as a road map for the Audit Committee's responsibilities. In addition, the Audit Committee is designated as the body that reviews ethics and related party transactions as well as allegations made under the cemetery's whistleblower policy.
For most cemeteries, burying a body is a matter of course: the funeral home delivers the body, provides the necessary documentation, and the burial takes place. The procedure may be less clear, however, where the person passed away while abroad and the body was subsequently repatriated without using a domestic funeral home.
When an American passes away abroad, a consular official from the US Department of State will arrange for the documentation necessary to facilitate shipment and U.S. Customs clearance for the body. These documents include the foreign death certificate (if available), an affidavit from the foreign funeral director, a transit permit, and a consular mortuary certificate, all of which will accompany the remains back to the United States. In addition, the consular mortuary certificate will generally satisfy U.S. public health requirements where the body has already been embalmed.
So what does this mean for a cemetery burying a body shipped by this method? Under New York Public Health Law (“NY PHL”) §4145(1), “internments, cremations or other dispositions” of a body are only permitted when the body is accompanied by a “burial, cremation, or transit permit.” However, NY PHL §4144(4) provides that “When the body of a deceased person is transported from outside of the state… for burial or other disposition, the transit or removal permit issued in accordance with the law and health regulations of the place where the death occurred shall be given the same force and effect as the burial permit herein provided for.” Thus even if the body is transported directly from the airport by a family member, the necessary documentation should still be accompanying the body. Records of the permit should be kept in the same manner as those provided by a funeral home.
This is the eighth and final post in our series looking at the long-running dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Center and the Village of Old Westbury over the Diocese’s proposed cemetery. Today’s post focuses on the remaining claims and the Court’s final rulings.
In addition to the issues discussed in the previous posts, there were also motions for summary judgment on several more minor claims for the Court to dispose of. First, the Diocese’s Equal Protection claim was dismissed on the grounds that the Diocese failed to show sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the POW Law was motivated by anti-religious intent, as a showing of purposeful discrimination by the Defendants is required. The Court did find, however, that the evidence cited may still be relevant to the RLUIPA claims. In addition, the Dioceses Fourth Amendment claim for warrantless search was allowed to proceed as the parties disputed whether the official had ever entered the premises to conduct an inspection. Finally, the Court found that the assertions of absolute and qualified immunity were not ripe for determination given the outstanding issues of material fact preventing a finding regarding the reasonableness of the Defendant officials’ actions.
In summary, the Claims which were allowed to proceed to trial were the: (1) RLUIPA substantial burden claim, (2) as-applied constitutional challenge to the POW Law, (3) First Amendment free exercise of religion claim, (4) Section 1983 retaliation claim, and (5) Section 1983 unlawful search claim.
This is the seventh post in our series looking at the long-running dispute between the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Center and the Village of Old Westbury over the Diocese’s proposed cemetery. Today’s post focuses on the retaliation claim brought under §1983.
After the RLUIPA claims, third issue the Court addressed was the Diocese’s claim that the defendants conduct since 2003 was taken is retaliation for the Diocese’s state lawsuit and the current §1983 action. Specifically, the Diocese alleged that the Village had intentionally delayed the permit applications and SEQRA process and attempted to increase the Diocese’s costs through unreasonable demands to conduct various studies and testing. Though the parties contest the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the Court found there was testimony in the depositions that did in fact suggest a link between the lawsuit and application process. Ultimately, the Court found that given “the temporal nexus of seven months, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, e.g., the length and expense of the QOP permitting process and the extensive restrictions in the Resolution, which seemingly go beyond the POW Law's requirements and are arguably gratuitous,” the evidence could support a finding of retaliation. The Court thus dismissed the Defendants motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim. The Court also notes an as-applied challenge similarly survives due to the questions of material fact regarding actual animus.
The next post in this series will look at the remaining motions for summary judgment and final rulings.

References: § 1502
 § 3
 §1502
 v. 
 § 2000
 v. 
 §4145
 §4144
 §1983
 §1983