Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiffs,
-against-
Defendant,
The following papers have been read, in this action, inter alia, to compel the determination of
claims to real property, on (A) plaintiffs' post-judgment and post-appeal motion, without any stated
basis, for an order "preliminarily" requiring defendants to re-connect water and electric services; and (B)
Upon the forgoing papers, it is hereby ORDERED that both the motion and the cross motion are
denied,
This action was tried in June 2007. On January 22, 2008, the Court rendered a lengthy written
decision, after which a final judgment was entered on February 14, 2008. Pursuanf to that judgment
several clear and unequivocal directives were made, including without limitation the imposition of a
permanent injunction restraining plaintiffs from using the subject premises, located in the Village of
Kiryas Joel, as a non-conforming unlawful house of worship, "pending any appropriate municipal
Plaintiffs appealed this judgment to the Appellate Division, Second Department. On September
22, 2009 the Appellate Division rendered a determination which, although modifying the Court to some
degree, substantively affirmed the above-referenced injunction. Plaintiffs have now been directed, both
within a final judgment from this Court and by the Appellate Division, Second Department, to stop using
the subject premises as a non-conforming house of worship pending an appropriate municipal application
Apparently not to plaintiffs. They now bring a post-judgment, post-appeal motion, using the
same 2004 index number as this disposed action and without any attempt to state the "grounds therefor"
(CPLR 2214 [a]), seeking a positive "preliminary" injunction directing defendants to re-connect their
water and electric service to allow for continued use of the premises as a house of worship. Defendants
exacerbate the situation by "cross moving", pursuant to CP1,17_3001', for certain declarations. Not once
in this flurry of purportedly exigent motions do any of the parties question the procedural propriety of the
relief requested. They appear to be under the erroneous belief that this long-disposed proceeding will
While alleging that plaintiffs are disobeying the injunction, defendants neither move for contempt nor
bring any other judicially recognized post judgment application. Rather, they effectively seek a declaratory
judgment, as well as entirely new directives never granted by the original decision and judgment. CPL' R 3001
authorizes the Court, in a declamatory judgment action, to "render a declaratory judgment having the effect of a final
judgment ... " [emphasis supplied]). The Court is at a loss to understand how the February 14, 2008 judgment,
after being substantively affirmed by the Appellate Division, could be any more final,
99:TT 60H/OWIT
90/E0 39Vd N310 r NOH 58CT635178
Bais Yoel Ohel Feige v Congregation Yetev Lev, index No. 4075/04 Page 3
The Village of Kiryas Joel is a community in which religion and state are so intertwined as to be
matters (see, Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satrnar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 287). Unfortunately, as the
parties are ostensibly unable to differentiate between the two, it is seemingly impossible to ever resolve
their "legal" issues. Rather, they engage in an endless cycle of seeking judicial intervention and then
ignoring court mandates, invoicing whichever authority is viewed as paramount at the time.
Notwithstanding this observation, the legal directives made in this disposed action are
unequivocal. Plaintiffs have been using the subject premises as a "non-conforming, unlawful house of
worship" (February 14, 2008 judgment, p. 2). Plaintiffs are to stop doing so until appropriate municipal
applications and determinations are made (February 14, 2008 judgment, p. 3). That judgment, as
effectuate the predicate for a preliminary injunction, i.e. to commence an appropriate action or
proceeding by filing and procuring a new index number (see, CPLR 304; 306-a; 6301 & 6311). If
defendants desire "declarations", they must likewise effectuate the predicate for a declaratory judgment,
i.e. to commence an appropriate action by filing and procuring a new index number (see, CPLR 304; 306-.
a; 3001). This matter remains disposed.
ENTER
O . JOSEPH G. OWEN
PREME COURT JUSTICE
SO/PO 39 d N3110 f NOH 9V8ETH5V8 9g:TT 600Z/OT/TT
Bois Yoe' Ohel beige v Congregation Yetev Lev, Index No. 4075/04
APPEARANCES:
SO/SO 39Vd NEMO f NOH SVOETHSP8 99:TT 6003/0T/TT