• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------XTARA INCANTALUPO, STEPHEN JACKSON,ANDREW LEVEY, STACEY SULLIVAN, andFU-YUN TANG,Plaintiffs,-against- MEMORANDUM AND DECISION09-CV-3342 (JS)(AKT)LAWRENCE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICTNUMBER 15, THE BOARD OF EDUCATIONOF THE LAWRENCE UNION FREE SCHOOLDISTRICT NUMBER 15, MURRAY FORMAN,DAVID SUSSMAN, URI KAUFMAN,ASHER MANSDORF, MICHAEL HATTEN,SOLOMON BLISKO, and NAHUM MARCUS,Defendants.------------------------------------XAPPEARANCES:For Plaintiffs: Robert M. Agostisi, Esq.Barnes & Barnes, P.C.1461 Franklin AvenueGarden City, NY 11530For Defendants:Brian S. Sokoloff, Esq.Steven C. SternSokoloff Stern LLP355 Post Avenue, Suite 201Westbury, NY 11501David J. Butler, Esq.Bingham McCutchen LLP2020 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006Roslyn Z. Roth, Esq.9 Troy PlaceMerrick, NY 11566SEYBERT, District Judge:Plaintiffs Tara Incantalupo, Stephen Jackson, AndrewLevey, Stacey Sullivan and Fu-Yun Tag (“Plaintiffs”) have filedsuit against Murray Forman, David Sussman, Uri Kaufman, Asher
Case 2:09-cv-03342-JS-ETB Document 34 Filed 08/24/09 Page 1 of 38
 
Mansdorf, Michael Hatten, Solomon Blisko and Nahum Marcus(collectively, “the Individual Defendants”) and the Lawrence UnionFree School District Number 15 and the Board of Education of theLawrence Union Free School District Number 15 (collectively,“Lawrence Defendants”), alleging violations of their First andFourteenth Amendment Rights. Plaintiffs have also moved for apreliminary injunction to enjoin a “Consolidation Plan” thatDefendants seek to implement this September. Defendants opposePlaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and, instead, demand thatthe case be dismissed.For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for apreliminary injunction is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint isDISMISSED.BACKGROUND
1
Plaintiffs are residents of the Lawrence Union FreeSchool District and the parents of children who attend thedistrict’s public schools. Compl. ¶¶ 4-13. The IndividualDefendants are current and former members of Lawrence’s Board of
1
The Court is addressing both Plaintiffs’ motion for apreliminary injunction and Defendants’ motion to dismiss.Because of this motion to dismiss, this Background sectionassumes the well-pled factual allegations in Plaintiffs’Complaint as true. These allegations are not accepted as truefor purposes of Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion. Thatbeing said, the Court notes that - even if it accepted all ofPlaintiffs’ allegations as true, Plaintiffs would still not beentitled to injunctive relief, as the Complaint fails to state aclaim.2
Case 2:09-cv-03342-JS-ETB Document 34 Filed 08/24/09 Page 2 of 38
 
Education (“the School Board”) who support the Consolidation Planthat Plaintiffs oppose. Id. ¶¶ 16-21.The Lawrence Union Free School District (“Lawrence”) isa school district within Nassau County, New York, serving theVillage of Lawrence and much of the surrounding “Five Towns” area.Id. ¶ 22. At one time, Lawrence had a demographically diversepopulation, and was known for its superior public schools. Id. ¶¶23-24.Beginning in the 1980s, Lawrence’s demographic balancebegan to shift due to a substantial influx of Orthodox Jews.Compl. ¶¶ 24-25. Orthodox Judaism is a form of Judaism thatdemands adherence to the Hebrew Bible’s commandments. Id. ¶ 28.
2
 Orthodox Jews’ religious beliefs manifest themselves in theiradherents’ diets, wardrobes, grooming habits, and their largenuclear families. Id. 29.
3
As a result, Orthodox Judaism
2
The Complaint also alleges that Orthodox Jews “are knownfor their strict interpretation” of the Hebrew Bible. Forpurposes of this motion, this allegation is begrudgingly acceptedas true. But, the Court notes, it appears to be based on popularstereotypes and misconceptions regarding Orthodox Judaism, notfacts. Orthodox Judaism does not interpret the Hebrew Bible“strict[ly],” but rather in accord with the Talmud and laterRabbinic codifications, which often interpret Biblicalcommandments liberally. See, generally, Ran-Dav's County Kosher,Inc. v. State, 243 N.J. Super. 232, 242 n.8, 579 A.2d 316, 321n.8 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1990) rev’d on other grounds at 129 N.J. 141(N.J. 1992) (noting that the Talmud and Rabbinic codificationsprovide the “principal source of modern-day decisions” forOrthodox Jewish practices).
3
The Complaint makes numerous factual generalizations aboutOrthodox Jews. Although the Court is forced to accept these3
Case 2:09-cv-03342-JS-ETB Document 34 Filed 08/24/09 Page 3 of 38
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...