1025 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
202.857.9766

Representative Matters

2017 AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA V. JACKSON TOWNSHIP, N.J. AL MADANY ISLAMIC CENTER OF NORWALK, INC. V. CITY OF NORWALK, CONN. ALBANIAN ASSOCIATED FUND V. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, N.J. AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE V. PRISON FELLOWSHIP MINISTRIES BAIS BRUCHA V. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER BENSALEM MASJID V. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, PA BERKOWITZ V. EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, N.Y. BETHEL WORLD OUTREACH MINISTRIES V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. BIKUR CHOLIM, INC. V. VILLAGE OF SUFFERN, N.Y. BUDDHIST EDUCATION CENTER OF AMERICA, INC., V. CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF TOMS RIVER V. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER, N.J. CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CHAPEL WESLEYAN CHURCH V. TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH CONAWAY V. DEANE CONGREGATION ARIEL RUSSIAN COMMUNITY SYNAGOGUE V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD. CONGREGATION HEICHEL DOVID CONGREGATION KOLLEL, INC. V. TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, N.J. CONGREGATION MISCHKNOIS LAVIER YAKOV V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE VILLAGE OF AIRMONT, N.Y. CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV V. VILLAGE OF POMONA, N.Y. COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA V. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE, N.J. DAYALBAGH RADHASOAMI SATSANG ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA V. TOWNSHIP OF OLD BRIDGE, N.J. EAGLE COVE CAMP & CONFERENCE CENTER V. TOWN OF WOODBORO, WISC. FAITH TEMPLE CHURCH V. TOWN OF BRIGHTON, N.Y. FIRST PENTECOSTAL UNITED HOLY CHURCH V. CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA FISHERMEN OF MEN CHURCH, APPLICATION OF, D.C. GREAT LAKES SOCIETY V. GEORGETOWN TOWNSHIP, MICH. GREENWICH REFORM SYNAGOGUE V. TOWN OF GREENWICH, CONN. GURU GOBIND SINGH SIKH CENTER V. TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, N.Y. HARBOR MISSIONARY CHURCH V. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, CAL. HINDU TEMPLE AND CULTURAL SOCIETY OF USA V. BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP, N.J. HUNT VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH V. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD. HUNT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH V. BALTIMORE COUNTY JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER MINISTRIES V. BALTIMORE COUNTY KELLEY, THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE GOVERNING BODY COMMISSION V. GARUDA MOXLEY V. TOWN OF WALKERSVILLE, MD. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR AMISH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM NAVAJO NATION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE NEW BEGINNINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP V. TOWNSHIP OF BRICK PARAMESWARAN V. MYSOREKAR RIVERDALE BAPTIST CHURCH V. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD. ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHRISTIAN CHURCH V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY SAHANSRA V. WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH CARE CORPORATION SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE V. COUNTY OF MAUI ST. JOHN UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, IND. ST. JOHN´S UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST V. CITY OF CHICAGO THAI MEDITATION ASSOCIATION OF ALABAMA V. CITY OF MOBILE PLANNING COMMISSION THIRD CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD TROTMAN V. BEN GILMAN SPRING VALLEY MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC VALLEY CHABAD V. BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J. YESHIVA GEDOLA NA'OS YAAKOV V. OCEAN TWP., N.J.

Congregation Heichel Dovid

02/14/2008: Another RLUIPA success story for S&G client

So, disagreements over new shuls still do arise and need to be resolved. To that end, last week the zoning board of the Village of Lawrence—after months of analysis, deliberation, and consultation on the matter—consented to allow a new shul, Congregation Heichel Dovid, to shortly begin functioning on a daily basis. The shul had previously been granted permission to operate on Shabbos and yom tov as well as on several additional days on the Jewish calendar.

”A New Shul Story,” Larry Gordon, 5 Towns Jewish Times.

02/08/2008: The Village of Lawrence, New York, granted S&G client Congregation Heichel Dovid a variance for its synagogue over the objections of organized community opposition

As this Firm informed the Village,

The denial of the parking variance, or the limitation of the parking variance only to Sabbath services and Holy Day observance, would violate the Congregation’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the New York Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), and New York’s civil rights statutes. Such action would expose the Village to years of litigation, potentially millions of dollars in damages and attorneys’ fees, together with a substantial likelihood of eventually allowing the use.