Claim of Rights Violation Of Hasidic Jews Is Rejected By JACQUES
STEINBERG, Published: December 15, 1993

WHITE PLAINS, Dec. 14— A Federal judge ruled today that a Rockland
County village had not violated the housing rights of Orthodox and
Hasidic Jews by trying to place zoning restrictions on the establishment
of small synagogues in private homes.

In dismissing a Justice Department civil lawsuit against the village of
Airmont, Judge Gerard L. Goettel of Federal District Court rejected the
Government's claim that the village had discriminated against Orthodox
and Hasidic Jews, and infringed on their ability to worship, by opposing
the efforts of some to create synagogues within their houses.

Rebuffing a companion lawsuit that had been filed by four Orthodox Jews
and their synagogue, Judge Goettel today also refused their request
that he dissolve the village or order its zoning code amended to ease
the establishment of home synagogues.

The rulings represented a bitter defeat to those Orthodox and Hasidic Jews
who had contended that Airmont -- a municipality of about 8,000 that was
incorporated as a separate village within the town of Ramapo in 1991 --
had been formed explicitly to keep them out. Nearly a quarter of Ramapo's
94,000 residents are believed to be Orthodox or Hasidic. Jury Verdict a
'Compromise'

The dispute has drawn a spotlight to the tensions which have often been
created as Orthodox Jews have departed New York City for its suburbs.

Some Orthodox Jews in Airmont contend that home synagogues, which
sometimes cater to as many as 40 congregants, are necessary in remote
neighborhoods because Jewish law prevents them from traveling by car on
the Sabbath, even to attend religious services. But some current and
former officials of Airmont have argued that home synagogues detract
from the residential character of the village by creating extensive foot
traffic and other disruptive activity.

The court decisions came one day after a Federal jury found, in the
companion lawsuit by the four Orthodox Jews, that the village had indeed
violated the Constitutional and fair housing rights of the plaintiffs,
whose efforts to create a home synagogue had been bitterly opposed by
the village's founders. But in a verdict that Judge Goettel disdainfully
referred to as a "compromise," the jury had awarded no damages to the
plaintiffs and had also found that no village officials had violated
the plaintiffs' Constitutional or housing rights.

The lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs and the Government were tried
simultaneously over the last eight weeks in Judge Goettel's courtroom
in Federal District Court here.

While he chose not to set aside those parts of the jury's verdict that
were contradictory to his own, Judge Goettel ruled that neither the
plaintiffs nor the Government had persuaded him to take action against
the village. The judge left open the possibility that he would invalidate
the jury's verdict if ordered by a higher court to impose some form of
relief. Larry L. Crain, a lawyer who had represented the plaintiffs,
said today that he intended to appeal to the United States Court of of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan. Mayor Sees Victory

Rabbi Yitzchok LeBlanc-Sternberg, who had filed the suit against the
village and its founders because of repeated attempts to ban his home
synagogue, said he was "obviously disappointed" that the judge had taken
no action against Airmont in response to the jury's finding. He said he
was confident that the appellate court would be more sympathetic.

Ralph J. Bracco, who was elected Mayor of Airmont in March, said he hoped
the judge's verdict would put to rest the perception that Airmont is an
anti-Semitic community.

"Come visit," Mayor Bracco said. "You'll see all different kinds of
people, all happy people."

In siding with the village, Judge Goettel seemed to accept its
lawyers' arguments that it had not acted to impose an outright ban on
the construction of home synagogues, but had sought only to subject
applications for houses of worship to certain zoning restrictions. The
zoning changes were formally adopted last January and limited home
synagogues to lots of specified dimensions in certain parts of the
village. The plaintiffs had contended that those restrictions made the
construction of synagogues all but impossible.

But the judge disagreed, pointing out that village officials had
ultimately dropped their opposition to Rabbi LeBlanc-Sternberg's
application and had allowed a number of informal home synagogues to be
established in Airmont, without pressure to apply for proper zoning. The
plaintiffs contended that the village officials, some of whom had hotly
opposed home synagogues of any kind, had temporarily tempered their
views in response to the lawsuits.