Horowitz v. Town of Clarkstown

Nature of the Filing

The document is a letter-motion from the Town of Clarkstown, the Town Council, and the Zoning Board of Appeals (collectively, the defendants). The defendants asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while their motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) remained pending. The requested stay would cover discovery, submission of a case-management order, and the initial pretrial conference.

Background

According to the defendants’ letter, Rabbi Naftali Horowitz brought claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The letter states that Horowitz asserted seven causes of action after a December 2025 decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning his application for area and parking variances.

The defendants’ pending motion to dismiss argues that Horowitz’s claims are not ripe, that he lacks standing, and that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim. The letter states that the complaint concerns both the Town’s adoption of Local Law 5 of 2016, regarding nonresidential uses in single-family residential districts, and the Zoning Board’s December 2025 decision on Horowitz’s variance application.

The court previously denied the defendants’ informal request to stay discovery without prejudice to renewal after further discussion with the court. The court later scheduled an initial conference for July 22, 2026, and then rescheduled it to August 6, 2026, at Horowitz’s request.

Arguments on the Requested Stay

The defendants argued that there was good cause for a stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They asserted that their motion to dismiss raised substantial jurisdictional and pleading arguments, that discovery in land-use and religious-land-use cases can be extensive, and that proceeding before resolution of the motion to dismiss could impose unnecessary costs. They also argued that Horowitz would not suffer unfair prejudice because the case was in its early stages and he continued using his home for religious gatherings.

The defendants’ letter states that they conferred with Horowitz and that he opposed any stay of discovery or the initial pretrial conference.

Court’s Action

Judge Victoria Reznik directed Horowitz to respond to the defendants’ letter by July 21, 2026. The document does not state that the court granted or denied the requested stay, and it does not decide the pending motion to dismiss.