Washington
1025 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
202.857.9766
New York
11 Broadway
Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
212.943.4343

Representative Matters

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 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 HEICHEL DOVID CONGREGATION KOLLEL 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. 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. HARBOR MISSIONARY CHURCH V. CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, CAL. HINDU TEMPLE AND CULTURAL SOCIETY OF USA V. BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP, N.J. 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 THIRD CHURCH OF CHRIST, SCIENTIST V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD TROTMAN V. BEN GILMAN SPRING VALLEY MEDICAL AND DENTAL CLINIC YESHIVA GEDOLA NA'OS YAAKOV V. OCEAN TWP., N.J.

Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang Association of North America v. Township of Old Bridge, N.J.

03/20/2015: State court dismisses third party's collateral attack on RLUIPA Consent Order between the Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang Association of North America and Old Bridge, N.J.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County Law Division, granted S&G client Dayalbagh Radhoasoami Satsang Association of North America's (DRSANA) motion to dismiss a complaint challenging the federal settlement between DRSANA and the Township of Old Bridge Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The settlement permits DRSANA to "build, occupy and operate on [their] property as described in the Settlement Agreement between DRSANA, the Township, and the Zoning Board," subject to site plan and subdivision approval.  The operation of DRSANA's planned religious facility includes a place of worship, parsonage and ten dwelling units in five residential duplex homes.  The settlement, which was incorporated into a federal consent order, was challenged by a third party opposed to such development.  The order of dismissal is available here.

07/24/2012: S&G client Dayalbagh Radhasoami Satsang Association of North America files RLUIPA lawsuit against Old Bridge, N.J.

The Association, part of the Radhasoami faith that was founded in 1861 in Agra, India, filed suit against the Township of Old Bridge and its Zoning Board of Adjustment challenging a recent zoning ordinance defining permissible religious dormitories and parsonages and the Board's enforcement of zoning laws against it in connection with the Association's plans to build a Satsang Center for worshipers. The complaint filed in federal district court alleges that "the Targeted Ordinance was enacted specifically to prevent the Plaintiff's religious use of the Subject Property."