Opinion ID: 754226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Granting of Injunctive and Other Relief on Remand

Text: 14 On remand following LeBlanc-Sternberg I, plaintiffs and the government submitted their requests for equitable relief. The government requested, inter alia, an injunction (a) prohibiting the Village from interpreting its zoning code to prevent or hinder Orthodox Jewish rabbis from conducting religious services in their homes, and (b) requiring the Village to modify its zoning code to ensure that such religious services are permissible. Plaintiffs requested an order that the Village of Airmont be dissolved or, alternatively, an injunction forbidding the Village from, inter alia, using its zoning or other powers to prohibit, restrict, or hinder individuals from peacefully assembling in any residential dwelling ... for the purpose of worship or prayer. (Proposed Relief of Plaintiffs at 9.) In addition, plaintiffs incorporate[d] by reference a request for all of the relief requested by the Government in its case. (Id. at 17.) 15 In the government action, the district court granted the government's requests. In addition to declaring that the Village had violated the FHA, the court entered an injunction that, inter alia, 16 enjoins the defendant Village of Airmont and its officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns, as appropriate, and all those acting in concert or participation with them, from: 17 (a) engaging in any conduct having the purpose or effect of perpetuating or promoting religious discrimination or of denying or abridging the right of any person to equal opportunity on account of religion, including, but not limited to, interpreting the Home Professional Office provision of the Airmont Zoning Code, or any other provision of the Airmont Zoning Code, so as to hinder, prevent, or prohibit persons from assembling in residential dwellings for the purposes of group prayer; 18 (b) discriminating against any person or group or [sic] persons on account of religion in connection with the planning, development, construction, acquisition, financing, operation or approval of any housing in the Village of Airmont; 19 (c) interfering with any person in the exercise of his right to secure equal housing opportunity for himself or for others; and 20 (d) taking any action which in any way denies or makes unavailable housing to persons on the basis of religion. 21 United States v. Village of Airmont, 925 F.Supp. 160, 161 (1996), aff'd, LeBlanc-Sternberg II, 104 F.3d 355. The judgment also required the Village to make certain revisions, modifications, deletions, and additions to the Village of Airmont Zoning Code, ordering it, inter alia, to add a provision stating that 22 [n]othing in this Zoning Code of the Village of Airmont, New York shall be construed or interpreted in any manner whatsoever so as to hinder, prevent, or prohibit individuals from peacefully assembling in residential dwellings solely for the purposes of individual or group prayer; 23 to add the following definition: 24 RESIDENTIAL PLACE OF WORSHIP--An area located within a residence that is used for the conducting of religious services. It is the intent of this Local Law that the presence of pedestrians walking to and from religious services at a Residential Place of Worship shall not in and of itself constitute a change in the residential character of the neighborhood; 25 and to make provision specifically that 26 [t]he Residential Place of Worship will be permitted by right on any day in all residential zones. 27 Id. In addition, the Village was ordered to add or alter certain other provisions dealing with other buildings used for conducting organized religious services. 28 The injunction further requires the Village, for a period of five years, to give the government advance notice of the scheduling of and agendas for any Village planning board or zoning appeals board meeting at which any applications relating to religious worship are to be considered, and to report to the government any proposed changes in the Village's zoning ordinances relating to religious worship. 29 In the present action, the district court, as directed by LeBlanc-Sternberg I, awarded plaintiffs nominal damages. In addition, the court granted plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief to the extent of the injunction granted in the government action. It denied plaintiffs' request for an order dissolving the Village, expressing skepticism about its power to issue such an order, stating that it declined to use a sledgehammer where a more delicate instrument w[ould] suffice and that the relief requested by the government and granted by th[e District] Court adequately meets the Second Circuit's concerns. LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 922 F.Supp. 959, 965 (1996), aff'd, LeBlanc-Sternberg II, 104 F.3d 355. The court stated:While we question whether the private plaintiffs ... require any injunctive relief at all, that which has been granted in the government's action will more than suffice. We believe that, to the extent that their requests are justified, they have been adequately encompassed by granting the government's requests. 30 Id. at 966. Accordingly, the judgment entered in the present action granted injunctive relief to the extent of that set forth in the Order and Judgment in the [government action]. (Order and Judgment dated April 25, 1996.) 31 The Village appealed from the judgments entered in both plaintiffs' action and the government action. We affirmed in both cases. See LeBlanc-Sternberg II, 104 F.3d 355. 32