“Satmar” = just another word for fraud?

LM Contributor, April 25,2016

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Residents see Bloomingburg’s future in secret development documents

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20160423/NEWS/160429682

 

“To attorney Philip Simpson, who represents the town in a Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit against the developers, the emails about fake renderings, an environmental survey based on a population of 810 and Section 8 housing implications in the documents amount to “very serious fraud.” The RICO suit was dismissed in September, but Simpson has appealed the dismissal and will argue his appeal in June. He hopes the court will take notice of these new documents, he said.”

de Blasio vs. Cuomo. The winner: Preet Bharara

April 25, 2016

US Attorney Preet Bharara recently reiterated both City Hall and the Governor’s Mansion are “far from immune” to his ever-widening crusade against public corruption. Now, it appears long-time rivals de Blasio and Cuomo – both targets of federal investigations – may be unwittingly engaged in Cold War-esque mutually assured destruction.

From the Daily News:

Mayor de Blasio suspects leak of memo alleging ‘criminal’ campaign violations due to dirty politics

Mayor de Blasio said Monday that the leak of a damning memo alleging he and his team violated campaign finance laws was nothing more than a dirty political hitjob.

De Blasio said he was mystified why the State Board of Elections document alleging “willful and flagrant” violations during his failed attempt to get Democratic control of the State Senate in 2014  had been made public.

“It’s outrageous and again I don’t know what’s motivating it,” de Blasio said.

“The facts will show that everything was done legally and appropriately.”

The mayor’s comments came four days after the Daily News exclusively reported on the letter written by State Board of Elections Chief Enforcement Officer Risa Sugarman to Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance.

Sugarman,  who was appointed by Gov. Cuomo, said the apparent campaign finance violations warranted a criminal investigation.

On Sunday de Blasio’s campaign lawyer, Laurence Laufer, returned fire, alleging that the letter was leaked to undermine the mayor.

De Blasio reiterated that belief during an unrelated event Monday in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

“Everything that I’ve done has been fully vetted by a variety of lawyers,” he said, adding that Sugarman may be misreading state law.

“When you see an inappropriate leak, when you see the law being misconstrued in such an obvious fashion, of course it begs the question of motivation. ”

Sugarman declined to respond to de Blasio’s criticism.

“I do not know who leaked this document. It wasn’t me or my division,” she said.

She charged in her memo that de Blasio’s team solicited donations to local Democratic committees that then quickly transferred the money to individual candidates, avoiding a $10,300 limit on campaign contributions.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara is also said to be examining the donations.

Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, told The News that such a practice is likely widespread  but worthy of examination.

“It’s a legitimate issue but it could be broader than just the Democrats. She should look into all the party committees. This is another example of New York’s disgraceful campaign finance system,” Horner said. “Allowing legal $100,000 donations to the party committees creates this environment. And they can transfer as much of that to the candidates of their choice”

Vance confirmed his office had received the letter regarding the alleged campaign misdeeds but said the publicity surrounding it was not of his concern.

“I’m confident that we can do our job as we would expect, irrespective of the letter’s disclosure,” Vance said.

Gov. Cuomo was not at the root of the leak, his spokeswoman, Dani Lever, said.

From the New York Post:

De Blasio’s imminent demise sparks hunt for a challenger

Gov. Cuomo has renewed his effort to recruit a challenger to Mayor de Blasio next year as the “smell of blood’’ from widening corruption probes has left de Blasio more vulnerable than ever, top Democrats have told The Post.

Cuomo has returned to the effort to oust de Blasio with a vengeance, bolstered by the impact of state and federal probes into the mayor’s official conduct and fund-raising activities, a newly disclosed state Board of Elections memo accusing the mayor and his allies of “willful and flagrant’’ violations of state law, and polls showing de Blasio’s popularity in sharp decline, the sources said.

His focus, said the insiders, has been on Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and city Comptroller Scott Stringer as possible mayoral contenders.

“There’s the smell of blood around de Blasio. Everybody knows his [polling] numbers are bad, and some of the people who said initially that they were not going to run are now seriously reconsidering,’’ said a prominent Democrat.

“The biggest name out there now is Ruben Diaz,” the source said. “He wasn’t going to do it but that’s now changed, and Stringer is looking at it again also.’’

Cuomo sought months ago to convince Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn) to challenge the mayor but abandoned the effort when the congressman insisted he wanted to remain in Washington and the mayor’s public approval ratings began to rise.

Diaz, 42, an ambitious rising star in city politics and son of state Sen. Ruben Diaz, a popular Bronx minister who was born in Puerto Rico, was described by the source — who has relationships with Cuomo, de Blasio and those being mentioned as possible candidates for mayor — as “increasingly interested’’ in Cuomo’s entreatments to challenge the mayor.

Several Democrats also said there’s widespread speculation that Cuomo had a hand in leaking the board’s January memo on Friday — just days after Senate Democrats backed by de Blasio won a major special election on Long Island — that accused de Blasio and his top aides of involvement in an illegal fund-raising scheme to help elect Democrats to the Senate.

The memo was penned earlier this year by Risa Sugarman, a former Cuomo staffer who got her job as the board’s “enforcement counsel’’ on Cuomo’s recommendation.

“The suspicion is that Cuomo was behind the leak, and if he was, nobody would be surprised,’’ said a prominent Democratic activist who has been close to the governor.

Republicans also think that Cuomo may have been involved in the leak.

“I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Cuomo’s operatives at the Board of Elections leaked that report on de Blasio,’’ said state GOP Chairman Ed Cox.

Cox said the ongoing investigations of de Blasio would make it a lot easier for the GOP to recruit a strong candidate next year against de Blasio — or another Cuomo-backed Democratic nominee.

“At the very best, de Blasio has had his head in the clouds, wanting to be the ‘progressive leader’ of the world and not paying attention to managing the city, and at the very worst, which is possible here, he’s been mired in corruption,’’ said Cox.

“Either way we are going to run an effective campaign next year, saying it’s time to bring back the integrity that Mayor [Rudy] Giuliani and Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg, both of who won as Republicans, brought to the city,’’ he said.

 

 

 

“The mayor is compromised. He has also compromised the integrity of the City of New York.”

April 24, 2016

From the New York Post

Activists call for de Blasio to step down

Two community activists called on Mayor de Blasio to step down Sunday, promising more protesters in the coming weeks at City Hall — which has become a “modern day Tammany Hall.”

“If he cares about this city the way he says he does, he needs to step down immediately and save us the continued national embarrassment,” said Tony Herbert, a former member of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. “There are a lot of levels to this corruption”

Herbert and John Rodriguez, who heads a community-police relations group in Brooklyn, stood outside City Hall Park on Sunday to slam de Blasio for presiding over several scandals that have rocked the city’s political firmament.

Both conceded they don’t expect Hizzoner to drop the reins of city government without a fight so they’re exploring how to jump-start the impeachment process.

“The mayor is compromised. He has also compromised the integrity of the City of New York,” Herbert said. “You can not honestly represent this city, having these criminal investigations on your back.”

City, state and federal investigators are probing de Blasio and his top aides in several areas, including their fundraising efforts for the 2014 state Senate races, donors who allegedly traded gifts for police favors, and a Lower East Side land deal that resulting in an assisted care facility being sold to build luxury apartments.

Herbert and Rodriguez said they’re unsure how impeaching a sitting mayor in New York City would work, but they aren’t the first to suggest de Blasio’s ouster. One change.org petitioner who attracted 250 supporters called for his impeachment a year ago for not being supportive of cops. Another moveon.org petition calling on his resignation received over 50,000 signatures in 2014 — before he had completed his first year in office.

Herbert suggested even more New Yorkers would back such an impeachment push now, citing three anti-de Blasio websites with thousands of supporters.

A de Blasio spokeswoman declined to comment on the nascent impeachment effort, but defended his efforts.

“We are confident that all of our efforts were appropriate and in accordance with the law at all times,” said spokeswoman Karen Hinton.

“deBacle” Going Down?

April 24, 2016

By all objective accounts, one cannot deny the likely outcome of de Blasio’s premature exit from office. However, one question remains: Who else is going down with him? Or, perhaps more accurately: Who is selling whom out? While we’re currently in the middle of Passover, it certainly feels more like we’re on the heels of Yom Kippur.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post writes:

The mayor is going down!

Less than a week ago, Mayor de Blasio was offering aid to Ecuadorians after the earthquake there. Now a political earthquake is rocking City Hall and the mayor is the one who needs help.

The report from the state Board of Elections that accuses him and his team of “willful and flagrant” violations of campaign-finance laws immediately changes everything.

The veneer of business as usual is shredded. Never again can de Blasio wave off questions about the mushrooming investigations of his administration. As revelations pile up day after day, allies will desert him and the Putz will find himself a very lonely man.

There is no way to sugarcoat the facts: de Blasio is in trouble. Maybe very big trouble.

His City Hall is being depicted as the seat of a criminal enterprise. And so far, he offers nothing resembling a convincing ­denial.

As bad as it is, the election report covering the 2014 state Senate races is just the start. The endgame involves the more ­lethal issue of whether de Blasio sold government favors to donors. That is what federal prosecutors are looking for, and I believe they will find a mother lode.

Yet if the election report were all there is, it would still be a problem. It calls one of the campaign violations a possible felony and refers its findings to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. for prosecution. That explains why Vance recently partnered up with US Attorney Preet Bharara in the multipronged probe, effectively doubling the number of prosecutors and investigators.

And that gets to the heart of de Blasio’s vulnerability. His 2014 Senate effort wasn’t unique. It is just one example of how he has done business since the day he won the election in 2013.

Think of it as de Blasio’s Big Idea. While denouncing income inequality, he was determined to harvest big bucks from unions and private firms that had business before the city, and then to use that money to carry out his “progressive agenda.”

He raised as much as $40 million and deposited it in various slush funds he formed, including the Campaign for One New York, which he started before he even took the oath of office.

The money would be managed by a small team of insiders. Some were on the city payroll, but most were in favored law firms, public relations and consultant shops. In effect, de Blasio outsourced a permanent political operation to be the vanguard of his administration.

The money would come from real-estate developers, yellow-taxi medallion owners, teachers unions and anybody else willing to play ball in hopes the mayor would ­return the favors.

Oh, and one more thing: de Blasio would do much of the fund-raising himself, meeting with donors in large groups or ­one-on-one.

That is exactly the pattern he used in trying to help Democrats take back the state Senate in 2014. “The entire fund-raising and campaign operation was run from City Hall by de Blasio staff in coordination with unions and Campaign for One New York officers and political consultants,” wrote Risa Sugarman, chief enforcement officer of the state Board of Elections.

She reports that some of the big checks that found their way into small upstate county political committees contained the words “donation per Mayor.”

Even before her findings were released, there were reports of new subpoenas being issued and a grand jury-hearing testimony. That suggests that the probes are well beyond the preliminary stage and that prosecutors are confident crimes have been committed.

It is almost impossible to believe that de Blasio will emerge unscathed. Though he is notoriously uninterested in policy ­details, he has been fully engaged in politics and all the deals and transactions.

The mayor’s 3 strikes:

City Hall knew about, and offered $16M to undo, nursing home flip

De Blasio used ‘slush fund’ to support faulty pre-K programs

City Hall backed campaigns with series of checks to ‘dodge’ limits

It can be no comfort to him that Bharara, who brought down former Albany kingpins Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos, is on the case. If the mayor knows a good ­defense lawyer, he ought to hire him ­immediately.

My belief, based on what we know so far, is that the money de Blasio raised in large amounts was fungible. It was moved from fund to fund and distributed according to the mayor’s instructions. I also believe many donors didn’t care about the specific issues they ostensibly were contributing to, only that they wanted to please the mayor.

One notorious example could be NYCLASS, the group that spent nearly $1 million to defeat de Blasio rival Christine Quinn in the 2013 Democratic primary. Its leaders, Steven Nislick and Wendy Neu, wanted to ban carriage horses, and when de Blasio promised he would after Quinn refused, a barrage of ads against Quinn helped demolish her. Some of the ad money came from odd sources that had no direct interest in the horses, only in de Blasio’s success.

But even as mayor he has been unable to shut down the horse-carriage industry — despite extraordinary efforts that included a proposal to spend $25 million in taxpayer money to put the horses in Central Park. During negotiations, Nislick and Neu said they met with de Blasio and approved his proposal. And don’t forget the huge raise the mayor approved for the City Council while its members considered his plan.

The access of NYCLASS, which received a subpoena, is the kind that money buys. It becomes illegal when there is a quid pro quo.

If de Blasio’s operation has committed crimes, New York is on the verge of a crisis unique in modern times.

The largest corruption scandal to rock City Hall in our era occurred in Ed Koch’s third term, which began in 1986. It, too, had many tentacles, from the old Board of Estimate to the Parking Violations Bureau to real-estate deals and patronage.

Queens Borough President Donald Manes committed suicide, political bosses like Stanley Friedman went to prison and a tarnished Bess Myerson won acquittal ­after a sensational trial.

Yet Koch was never charged or implicated in any crime and went on to finish the term with solid accomplishments, though he did lose the next election.

The current mayor should be so lucky.

Hey Mr. Tally Man, Come Tally Me, de Blasio

 

MAYOR DE BLASIO, TRADING MONEY FOR FAVORS?

LostMessiah, April 24, 2016

We have held to the position that Mayor de Blasio had a relationship with Jona Rechnitz and Jeremy Reichberg for years and that a large part of his fundraising activities begin and end with R$R. He knew that they were lobbying for his causes and raising money for his various “slush funds” including One New York. And it is our opinion that it does not end there. Mayor de Blasio had other positions before he became Mayor and was fairly savvy, in our view, at running in political and financial circles that would yield the most return on his investment in time. We are hoping to show you our trail of crumbs in due time. In the meantime….

 

The New York Daily News reports:

Bill de Blasio’s bill comes due: Preet Bharara and others are looking under every shell

“This is how the shell game is played, and now people who it’s a crime to tell a lie to are grabbing wrists and lifting up each shell. Which could take a while, what with how often de Blasio’s principles have lined up with his funding.

With the taxi industry. The helicopters. Developers — with Smith counting at least 40 checks from ones with business before the city, several of whom gave five or six figures just before or after requesting, and in some cases winning, favors from City Hall.

Like the hawker says: “Step right up — you can’t lose!” Which is true, so long as you’re in on the fix.

The feds are also looking at how the city helped turn a nursing home for AIDS patients into luxury condos and at a series of scandals involving hookers for top cops and diamonds for their wives, NYPD gun permits to members of city-approved and sometimes -funded vigilante groups and more — our own little Iran-Contra affair, which Commissioner Bill Bratton has conceded is the worst corruption scandal to hit the department since the 1970s.

The other main line of the feds’ probe we know about involves de Blasio’s personal efforts in 2014 to raise money in what turned out to be an unsuccessful and politically damaging bid to flip the state Senate, steering big contributions to local party committees that in turn directed them to specific candidates in what looks an awful lot like a scheme to evade limits on direct donations.

It’s all more than a little ironic coming from a mayor who likes to rail about how money corrupts politics, and vowed to have the “most transparent administration” in history.

Bharara, who took down former Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver and former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, seemed to going for the trifecta in a probe of Andrew Cuomo. That was before he put out a letter, just ahead of the governor’s State of the State speech, saying he’d found no basis for criminal charges. I have no idea if Washington played a role in at least the timing of that announcement, which lent itself to speculation.

I know de Blasio’s on the hot seat now, and that his terse, lawyerly answers to questions about all this, when he’s answering them at all, haven’t given New Yorkers much reason to think that their mayor is concerned with what’s good for the city ahead of and distinct from what’s good for him.

De Blasio’s premise — the same defense offered at trial by Silver, whom the mayor called a “man of integrity” after Bharara charged him — is that there were no policy quids in exchange for the cash quos.

That’s what Bharara, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance and, bizarrely, the city’s Department of Investigation are trying to find out now about de Blasio. Speaking of shell games, I call that bizarre because DOI is led by Mark Peters, who was the treasurer for de Blasio’s 2013 campaign. Peters finally recused himself from the probe last week, but, as The News editorial page wrote recently, he needs to step down.

De Blasio’s implicit argument, I think, is that he was playing the same sort of cash games that Cuomo and others were, to stay on an equal political footing. And that, as with the governor, it’s not a crime.”

See also:

The New York Daily News:

Bill de Blasio’s City Hall $tench: The campaign finance scandal grows still larger

“Team de Blasio then funneled the cash through the Democratic County committees of Putnam and Ulster counties, which promptly turned over $970,000 to the three campaigns — much of it from developers and unions with business before the mayor. The suddenly interested givers made contributions ranging from $10,000 to the max $102,300.

Other donations went to the statewide Senate Democratic Campaign Committee and on to the campaigns.

Had the donors contributed directly to the candidates, they would have been limited to contributions of $10,300 to each.

Sugarman described the effort to evade the campaign contribution limits by de Blasio’s operatives as “coordinated at every level and down to minute detail” — including a meeting between Wagner, top de Blasio political aide Emma Wolfe and UFT president Michael Mulgrew.

Funneling donors’ dollars to campaigns through party committees is nothing new — as de Blasio is likely to feebly say.

But concocting a plot to evade the law, if that’s what prosecutors find de Blasio or his associates did, is far worse than merely odiferous conduct.

Credibly, Sugarman has, in effect, portrayed de Blasio as the head of a political crime family. Rest assured that no one ever made such a damning statement about de Blasio’s hero Fiorello LaGuardia or any other mayor between then and now.”

The New York Daily News:

De Blasio fund-raising probe continues, GOP mainstays believe it’s just the beginning

“Authorities are trying to determine if de Blasio and his team funneled money through Democratic county committees to evade campaign contribution limits. Evading campaign donation limits is a felony.

It’s not clear who might be charged — if anyone.

Sources said the money was intended to help at least three upstate candidates win their elections, so the Democratic Party could have an upper hand in the Senate in 2014.

On Saturday, former Democratic state Sen. Terry Gipson, one of upstate pols who benefited from the scheme, avoided speaking with a Daily News reporter outside his Rhinebeck home.

DE BLASIO TEAM SKIRTED CAMPAIGN DONATION LIMITS; INVESTIGATORS FOUND ‘WILLFUL AND FLAGRANT’ VIOLATIONS ‘WARRANTING PROSECUTION’

A flurry of subpoenas have been issued in the wide-ranging probe, reportedly trying to determine whether election laws were circumvented and whether promises were made in exchange for the donations.

De Blasio, who has denied any wrongdoing, could not be reached on Saturday

Meanwhile developer Joseph Tahl, who donated $10,000 to the Democratic committee in upstate Putnam County, refused to speak to a reporter Saturday at his Harlem apartment.

“I’m not talking about that,” he said.

Authorities have also been investigating two businessmen, Jeremy Reichberg and Jona Rechnitz, who may have plied high-ranking NYPD officers with cash, gifts and trips in exchange for special treatment. Several NYPD officers have placed on modified duty as a result.”

Protecting Our Children From Abuse

April 23, 2016

Protect Jewish Kids

http://protectjewishkids.com/

 

Home

My name is Eric Aiken. I was raised, and remain, a fully observant Orthodox Jew.“The List” is the most comprehensive compilation in the world of individuals involved in Orthodox Jewish communities who are alleged to have been either arrested for, or convicted of, child sex crimes. (Please read the Disclaimer page before reading “The List” page.)

Goals

Among my goals in creating this database is that it be used as a resource for parents and employers to protect children, prevent abuse and deter cover-ups. I believe that this database will help save the lives of Jewish children who are deliberately targeted by Orthodox child sex predators for rape and sexual abuse.

---

 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

– Edmund Burke

In truth, this database should not be run by me, but rather by any number of major Orthodox institutions who are responsible for the safety of Orthodox children. Despite being told privately by top officials at Agudath Israel of America, the Rabbinical Council of America and the National Council of Young Israel that they all support exposing Orthodox child molesters, not one of these organizations publishes a database that exposes these criminals.

None of them will even endorse this website which does exactly what they privately tell me that they support. Their callousness endangers Orthodox children everywhere by failing to expose the identities of Orthodox child rapists and molesters to Orthodox parents and employers.

Children who are sexually abused suffer enormously from the trauma of their abuse. Many suffer their entire lives. They have higher rates of drug addiction, alcohol abuse, failed marriages and suicide than the general public. It is imperative that we, as adults, do everything in our power to protect the children in our care from these heinous assaults. But to do so, we first need to know who the people are who commit these crimes.

---

Cover-ups

“If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one.” The movie, “Spotlight”.

I personally know at least a dozen Orthodox men who are either child sex predators, child pornographers, rapists or sex offenders. Half of them are rabbis. Some of them I grew up with, some I met in yeshiva, some I met through simply living in Orthodox communities throughout the U.S. and Israel.

If you are Orthodox, you probably also know quite a few Orthodox sexual predators. You just don’t know that they are predators because they are rarely identified publicly and few people in the Orthodox community are willing to discuss the subject.

In my research for this website, I have discovered a common theme. Orthodox child sex predators are routinely protected and covered up by rabbis and Orthodox  officials.

Victims who speak out or report their abuser to the police are publicly shamed, humiliated and punished. Many victims and even their entire families are expelled from their Jewish schools, synagogues and communities for speaking the truth. This is typically done with at least the tacit, if not overt, approval of local rabbis and Orthodox officials.

Few Orthodox rabbis or officials are willing to acknowledge in more than broad, non-specific terms the severity of child sexual abuse in our communities. No one who conceals and covers up known child sex predators is held accountable for their reckless actions. Institutions that allow Jewish children to be sexually abused are shielded from responsibility for their negligence by powerful rabbis. Victims are not acknowledged, apologized to or compensated for their enormous pain and suffering.

The covering up of Orthodox child sex predators and the ignoring of the plight of thousands of their victims is a gross violation of Torah laws and Jewish ethics. Our rabbis and Orthodox officials need to stop denying, minimizing and ignoring our child sex abuse problem. They need to expel child sex predators from our institutions and communities and embrace the victims whose lives have been destroyed through no fault of their own.

I believe that it is just as dangerous today to be an Orthodox child as it was for me and the kids of my generation 35 or 40 years ago. No one protected us from Orthodox child sex predators then and little is being done to protect the children of this generation, either. By failing to address the problem of child sexual abuse in any significant or meaningful way, our religious leaders are enabling the future destruction of thousands of Jewish children’s lives.

Many victims of sexual abuse will leave Judaism in disgust because no one who could have and should have protected them did so. Some victims will choose to self-medicate their pain through drug or alcohol abuse. Others will not deal with their pain anymore and will choose suicide.

So the question for our rabbis and communities is, what’s our number? How many more of our children should we allow to be raped and sexually abused before we act? How many more Jewish victims need to jump out of hotel windows or pull the trigger to the gun they put to their head before we stop the abusers and their abuse?

Abuse frequently moves from generation to generation. Many abusers were abused themselves when they were children. How many more generations of sexually abused victims are we going to allow to become abusers themselves?

What’s our number?

Please go to the website. Please send along tips. www.protectjewishkids.com

 

 

WOODBURY-KIRYAS JOEL, Zoning Upheld

• Appeals court upholds Woodbury’s zoning laws

http://www.recordonline.com/news/20160421/appeals-court-upholds-woodburys-zoning-laws

 

April 21, 2016

WOODBURY — A state appeals court has upheld the Village of Woodbury’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning laws, reversing a 2014 ruling that branded the zoning “exclusionary” for failing to accommodate the high-density housing needs of the Hasidic residents of neighboring Kiryas Joel.

In a decision signed Wednesday, a four-judge Appellate Division panel rejected all three grounds Supreme Court Justice Francis Nicolai had given for invalidating the planning blueprint and two zoning amendments Woodbury approved in 2011. Under their ruling, Kiryas Joel and the affiliated plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit that same year must now return to Supreme Court and prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the plan and land-use laws constitute illegal “exclusionary zoning.”

“It strikes down the notion of affirmative action in accommodating religious sects in zoning,” Dennis Lynch, the South Nyack attorney representing Woodbury, said of the appeals court ruling on Thursday.

Kiryas Joel’s lawyers had argued that zoning for large residential lots prevents Hasidic Jews from “living and freely practicing their religion in Woodbury.” Joining the village as a plaintiff in the case was the land-holding arm of Kiryas Joel’s main congregation, which owns 175 acres in Woodbury.

In addition to the “exclusionary zoning” argument, Nicolai — who retired shortly after rendering his decision in the case — had invalidated Woodbury’s Comprehensive Plan for two technical reasons involving the environmental review and county approval for those documents. The Appellate Division found no merit in either claim and reversed Nicolai on those points as well.