Fortress Bible Church and its pastor sued the Town of Greenburgh and its officials after the town delayed and ultimately denied approvals for the church's proposed building project on its property. The suit alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, state constitutional protections, and New York's SEQRA environmental review statute, claiming the town acted arbitrarily, imposed excessive requirements and fees, and engaged in spoliation of evidence during the review process. Following a 26-day bench trial, the district court issued detailed findings of fact that the town's handling of the application was improper, including unjustified delays, inconsistent demands for stormwater compliance, and lack of credible justification for its actions. The court concluded that these facts supported the plaintiffs' claims of discriminatory treatment in the land-use process.
MetroPCS sued the City of Mount Vernon, alleging that the city violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and state and local law by denying its application for a special use permit to install a stealth rooftop antenna, insisting on use of an alternative distributed antenna system, discriminating against it compared to other carriers, and imposing unreasonable application and consulting fees. The city argued that the application was incomplete, failed to show a coverage gap primarily in Mount Vernon, and did not adequately consider less obtrusive alternatives. The court granted summary judgment to MetroPCS, finding that the denial lacked substantial evidence in the record, that the city had unreasonably delayed and discriminated in violation of the TCA, and that the fee provisions were invalid because they lacked limits and were not tied to actual costs; it issued an injunction requiring approval of the application and directed the city to refund excessive fees.
The case concerned a challenge by the United States and an intervenor to the Village of Port Chester's at-large system for electing its six-member Board of Trustees, alleging that the system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by denying Hispanic residents an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. After a bench trial, the court found that the at-large system resulted in a violation, based on evidence of racially polarized voting, the history of elections, and other Senate factors showing Hispanics had less opportunity to elect representatives despite their population share. In the remedial phase, the court selected the Village's proposed cumulative voting system within the existing at-large framework over a districting plan, determining it was a legally acceptable remedy that addressed the violation. The court ordered the parties to develop an education and outreach program and delayed the 2010 trustee elections until June to allow proper implementation.
This case involves security officers suing their employer, the Wackenhut Corporation, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid wages related to preliminary and postliminary activities such as donning protective gear, obtaining radios and batteries, waiting to enter the gun room, and transit before and after shifts at a nuclear facility. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the claims concerning activities performed before the officers obtained their guns and after they returned them. The core reasoning was that these tasks, including donning generic protective equipment and waiting before principal activities began, were not integral to the officers' principal work and thus not compensable under FLSA precedents distinguishing such activities from those that start or end the compensable workday.
The case involved a plaintiff suing Westchester County and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging constitutional violations arising from a traffic stop, detention, and search. After partially denying motions to dismiss, the court granted defendant Luciano's motion for reconsideration, finding that he was a deputized federal task force officer with the DEA at the time of the incident and thus a federal employee. The court therefore held that § 1983 claims against him must be construed as Bivens claims and directed the plaintiff to properly serve the United States within 60 days for the official-capacity claims against Luciano.
In this case, plaintiff Stephen Drago challenged the City of White Plains Planning Board's grant of special permits to MetroPCS for erecting wireless cell antennas, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction under the Federal Telecommunications Act (TCA), 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v), and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because the TCA does not create a private right of action for individuals adversely affected by local approvals of such facilities. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that the statute's text and legislative history limit enforcement actions to those consistent with congressional intent to facilitate telecom deployment while constraining local zoning, without extending a private right to residents opposing permits. The court further dismissed the declaratory judgment claim for lack of independent federal jurisdiction once the TCA claim failed.