Perlstein Response To Jackson Township

OCN-C-000099-21 07/23/2021 12:24:10 PM Pg 1 of 25 Trans ID: CHC2021144610
BURTON JACOBOVITCH LAW GROUP LLP

Yosef Jacobovitch, Esq. (Bar No. 098292015)
500 River Avenue
Suite 215
Lakewood, New Jersey 08701
Tel.: (732) 806-8181
STORZER & ASSOCIATES P.C.

Sieglinde K. Rath, Esq. (Bar No. 048131991)
9433 Common Brook Rd
Suite 208
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
Tel.: (410) 559-6325
Attorneys for Defendant
TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, NJ, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANCERY DIVISION
Plaintiff, GENERAL EQUITY PART
OCEAN COUNTY
v.
Docket No. OCN-C-00009-21
MOSHE DOVID PERLSTEIN.,
Civil Action
Defendant.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
OF DEFENDANT MOSHE DOVID
PERLSTEIN
Defendant, MOSHE DOVID PERLSTEIN, by way of Answer to the Complaint, states:
COUNT ONE
1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
allegations set forth in paragraph “1” of Plaintiff’s Complaint and leaves the Plaintiff to its proofs.
2. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph “2” of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
1
3. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph “3” of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4. Defendant admits that there has been one Township resident that has complained
that the Property is vacant, but Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or
deny the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph “4” of Plaintiff’s Complaint and leaves
the Plaintiff to its proofs.
5. The allegations in paragraph “5” of Plaintiff’s Complaint call for a legal conclusion
to which no response is required. To the extent that a specific response is required, Defendant
denies the allegations set forth in paragraph “5” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
6. The allegations in paragraph “6” of Plaintiff’s Complaint call for a legal conclusion
to which no response is required. To the extent that a specific response is required, Defendant
denies the allegations set forth in paragraph “6” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
7. Defendant admits that “The Township Zoning Department issued Notices of
Violation”. Further, the allegation “as a result of the improper use of the Property”” is a legal
conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a specific response is required,
Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in paragraph “7” of the Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
8. Defendant admits the allegations set forth in paragraph “8” of the Plaintiff’s
Complaint that a matter is pending between the parties in the Municipal Court for Jackson
Township and that it has been adjourned. To the extent that the Plaintiff is referring to any other
action, the Defendant denies the allegations.
9. The allegations set forth in paragraph “9” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint call for a
legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a specific response is
required, Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph “9” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2
10. Defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph “10” of the Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
COUNT TWO
11. In response to paragraph “11” of the Complaint, Defendant repeats and reiterates
all responses to paragraphs “1” through “10” as though more fully set forth herein.
12. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the
allegations set forth in paragraph “12” of Plaintiff’s Complaint and leaves the Plaintiff to its proofs.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
COUNT THREE
3
20. In response to paragraph “20” of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant repeats and
reiterates all responses to paragraphs “1” through “20” as though more fully set forth herein.
Complaint.
Complaint.
Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE
This Court does not have jurisdiction over all claims asserted.
THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE
Any and all injuries and damages were proximately caused by actions or negligence of
Plaintiff or by persons not under the control of this Defendant.
FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Any and all injuries and damages were caused solely by the intentional behavior of the
Plaintiff.
FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Defendant at all times acted reasonably, in good faith, and in accordance with all applicable
laws of the United States, State of New Jersey, and local ordinances.
SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
4
Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, waiver, and/or unclean
hands.
EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Defendant has a constitutionally protected right under the New Jersey Constitution to
engage in religious assembly at his property, and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the same.
NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Defendant has a constitutionally protected right under the New Jersey common law to
engage in religious assembly at his property, and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the same.
TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has violated Defendant’s right to Free Exercise of Religion under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the same.
ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has violated Defendant’s right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the same.
TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has violated Defendant’s rights under the Nondiscrimination provision of the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2), and Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by the same.
THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
5
Plaintiff has violated Defendant’s rights under the Substantial Burden provision of the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a), and Plaintiff’s
claims are barred by the same.
FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has violated Defendant’s rights pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq., and Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the same.
FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE
Defendant did not violate any duty owed to plaintiff under common law, statute,
regulations, or standards.
Defendant reserves its right to assert such other affirmative defenses as continuing
investigation and discovery may indicate are appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint and
an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST
TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, NEW JERSEY
Defendant, Moshe David Perlstein, with an address of 71 East Connecticut Concourse,
Jackson, New Jersey, by way of Counterclaim against the Plaintiff, Township of Jackson, New
Jersey, says:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Defendant files these Counterclaims to redress violations of his civil rights
caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional conduct in engaging in a continuing pattern of
harassment and intimidation designed to disrupt Defendant’s Orthodox Jewish religious
6
exercise in violation of the United States Constitution, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”), and the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A 10:5-1, et seq.
2. This orchestrated campaign of harassment by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant includes burdensome inspections at the Defendant’s property, 71 E. Connecticut
Concourse, Jackson, New Jersey, identified on the tax map of the Township of Jackson as
Block 6009, Lot 5 (“the Property”) in furtherance of efforts to prohibit the use of the
property for religious exercise, allegations of building code violations and unreasonable
scheduling of hearings in the Jackson Township Municipal Court.
PARTIES
3. Defendant, David Moshe Perlstein, is a United States citizen and a resident
of the state of New Jersey.
4. Defendant TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, NJ is a municipal corporation of
the State of New Jersey, having offices at 95 W Veterans Hwy, Jackson Township, NJ
08527.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On or about September 20, 2019, Defendant purchased the Property.
6. From the purchase of the Property until the present date, the Property has
been leased to other individuals.
7. From September 2019 through October 2020, the Property was leased to
Rabbi Shmuel Perlstein.
7
8. From October 2020 to the present date, the Property has been leased to
Yonason Shechter.
9. Mr. Schecter has resided at the Property as a tenant since October 2020.
10. At all times relevant herein, Defendant has given permission to the tenants
at the Property, including Mr. Schecter, to permit guests at the Property for purposes of
religious prayer and activity.
11. Both tenants at the Property and the Defendant are Orthodox Jews.
12. Mr. Schecter has been hosting gatherings for religious prayer at the
Property.
13. Gatherings for religious assembly in private homes such as that conducted
at the Property are permitted pursuant to New Jersey state law.
14. Gatherings for religious assembly in private homes such as that conducted
at the Property do not violate Plaintiff’s zoning code.
Enforcement Actions
15. On or about October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed the following Complaints
against the Defendant in the Jackson Township Municipal Court:
a. Complaint Number SC 2020 18234 issued on 10/16/2020, LAND USE &

DEV REG/ZONING APPLICATION REQUIRED.
b. Complaint Number SC 2020 18235 issued on 12/21/2020, LAND USE &

DEV REG/ZONING APPLICATION REQUIRED.
16. The Complaints were issued without the Plaintiff conducting any inspection of the
interior of the home on the Property.
8
17. The Complaints were scheduled for hearing on December 17, 2020. They were
consecutively adjourned to the following dates: January 21, 2021, February 18, 2021, March 25,
2021, and May 6, 2021.
18. The hearing is presently scheduled for December 31, 2021.
19. On or about April 22, 2021, the Township issued and posted a Stop Construction
Order at the Property.
20. On or about April 26, 2021, the Township issued and posted another Stop
Construction Order at the Property.
21. On or about June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the within action alleging that the
Defendant had conducted construction work at the Property without a permit or approval.
22. Plaintiff has further alleged that Defendant has engaged in a change of use of the
Property in violation of the Township Zoning Code, i.e. change of use to a house of worship.
23. Contemporaneous with the filing of the Complaint on June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed an Order to Show Cause with this Court seeking a temporary restraining order to, among
other relief sought, prohibit any gathering or assembly to take place at the Property, performing
any construction at the Property, and using the Property in any way that may violate the Township
Code of the Township of Jackson.
24. All three Township officials who submitted Certifications in support of the
Temporary Restraining Order indicated that “unnamed” individuals had complained about the
Property.
25. This Court conducted a hearing on the Township’s Request for a Temporary
Restraining Order on June 29, 2021.
26. The Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order stating:
9
Now, the Court is satisfied in this case, that the plaintiffs have not met their
burden, addressing first the issues with regard to law. It is -- as pointed out
by the defendants in this matter, free exercise falls under the First
Amendment, applicable to states through the 14th Amendment, as well as
the Equal Protection Clause under the U.S. Constitution amendment, the
14th Amendment, does not prevent all assemblies. And the -- when it's been
applied in New Jersey, State versus Cameron, Farhi versus Commissioners
of Deal, and Kali Bari Temple versus Board of Adjustment of Readington.
We compare favorably Chabad of Randolph versus Township of Randolph,
that they have universally held that as a -- that religious people are permitted
to conduct the religious gatherings and assemblies in their home -- in their
homes. That to bar them or to use statutes to bar them is a violation.
....
And under the circumstances here there's insufficient basis for me to find
that the harm is such that in balancing the equities that for me to issue an
Order that would bar any further assemblies would pose what would be a
sig- -- I would think a significant impact on this community that requires,
as indicated in the certifications and the briefs, and reading the cases, that it
-- it requires a local area to worship come the Sabbath where they cannot
travel or do anything that's considered to be work. And that's why these --
these small areas of -- of worship have sprung up. That -- that seems to be
in -- in line with what's happening here, based on the cases that I read and,
in any event, I think it would be a significant and substantial hardship on
them. All for the neighbors to have to put up with maybe some -- some
noise and some more congestion in the area is - doesn't impact anything.
It really goes to the heart of their being, which the -- the want of religious
communities. It's an important aspect of their everyday life and I --- I think
that would be a significant impact.
27. The Court did Order that the Defendant “permit Plaintiff access to the subject
Property at a mutually agreeable day and time, for the purpose of permitting Plaintiff or its agents
to inspect the Property to determine if any unpermitted work was done and whether as a result,
there is a safety risk.”
28. Upon information and belief, this was due to the Plaintiff’s repeated assertions that
there were building code violations and safety concerns at the Property.
29. The parties agreed to a date of July 7, 2021 for the inspection of the Property to be
conducted.
10
30. On July 7, 2021, seven (7) representatives/inspectors of the Plaintiff came to the
Property to conduct the inspection of the same.
31. As a result of that inspection, the Plaintiff filed the following Complaints against
the Defendant in the Jackson Township Municipal Court:
a. Complaint number SC 2021 15969 issued on 07/12/2021; Landlord

Registration
b. Complaint Number SC 2021 15970 issued on 07/12/2021; Housing

Standards - Rental CCO’s Required
c. Complaint Number SC 2021 18663 issued on 07/14/2021; Land use &

Dev Reg/Zoning Application Required
32. The only Complaints pending against the Defendant in the Jackson Township
Municipal Court do not concern any building code violations or safety issues at the Property.
33. The new Complaints are scheduled for hearing on September 9, 2021.
34. The Defendant cannot remedy the violations complained of in Complaints SC 2021
15969 and SC 2021 15970 until the matter is heard and concluded in the Jackson Township
Municipal Court because there is an outstanding zoning code violation as alleged by Plaintiff..
35. The Plaintiff has therefore placed the Defendant in a position where it cannot obtain
a rental certificate of occupancy nor can it comply with the Township’s Landlord Registration
Ordinance.
36. The Plaintiff has now filed three Complaints against the Defendant in Jackson
Township Municipal Court alleging change of use at the Property from a residence to a house of
worship.
37. The latest Change of Use Complaint has been issued despite this Court’s ruling on
the gathering for religious prayer use of the Property on June 29, 2021.
11
38. The Plaintiff's five violations, three for change of use violations and two for rental
code violations are contradictory in nature. The Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant engaged in
a change of use by using the home exclusively for a prayer group, and at the very same time is
alleging that the Defendant has failed to register as a landlord for the home's tenant.
39. The principal use of the Property has been and remains as a detached single-family
dwelling.
40. The Defendant is aware that Mr. Schechter resides at the Property.
41. Although the Defendant’s use of the Property is not a “place of worship,”
“Churches and places of worship” are permitted as a conditional use in the Plaintiff’s zoning code
in the R-15 zone where the Property is located.
42. According to their religious beliefs, Orthodox Jews do not travel in cars from Friday
at sunset until stars emerge on Saturday night (“Shabbos”).
43. Unlike other religious denominations, Orthodox Jews can only travel by foot on
Shabbos and on many Jewish holidays, and are therefore uniquely affected by geographic
limitations in their religious exercise.
44. With the consent of the Defendant and Mr. Schecter, the Property has been used as
a place of prayer and worship for nearby neighbors, hosting daily, Jewish holiday and Shabbos
prayer gatherings.
45. Such a prayer gathering, consisting of at least ten (10) Orthodox Jewish men, is
called a minyan and is a form of religious exercise.
46. The Defendant and Mr. Schechter are engaged in religious exercise in hosting these
prayer gatherings.
12
47. The Plaintiff’s purpose in instituting the within action is to prohibit the Defendant
from engaging in religious exercise at the Property, to continue its campaign of hostility against
the Orthodox Jewish community, see infra, to discriminate against Orthodox Jews, and to appease
local residents who are also hostile toward Orthodox Jews.
48. The actions taken against the Defendant by Plaintiff were motivated by hostility
toward the Defendant’s religion and religious denomination, and his exercise of fundamental
rights.
49. Township residents have been very vocal on social media about their hostility
toward the religious prayer occurring at the Property.
50. Comments on Facebook regarding the Property have included:
a. “Its [sic] a damn shame. I’m sorry but our town has done nothing to
prevent or stop this. . . . They gave them all the time in the world to
make things look nice and lived in. . . Maybe if more residents would
have shown up and complained. But whatever. 6 people cannot save a
town of 55,000.”
b. “[T]hey want to know why they are NOT [sic]ot welcome.”
c. “71 East Connecticut Concourse has been operating as an illegal

synagogue. . . . 73 East Connecticut Concourse has been sold to Shmuel
and Naomi Perlstein. . . . The Strong likelihood is 73 East Connecticut
Concourse will never have residents and instead will be used as another
religious facility.”
d. “I feel sorry for the residents whose government and elected officials
are failing them.”
e. “[T]he Judge ruled that congregants are allowed to continue to destroy

the quality of life of Everyone who lives around it and the life that they
once had will no longer exist.”
51. A Township resident sent an email to Plaintiff’s officials regarding the Property
stating:
13
“It seems . . . quality of life for long time residents is being negatively
effected [sic] by the lack of enforcement to issues that seems to be fitting
an agenda that is forcing people to move. Please take into consideration the
many families who are still living in this neighborhood who want its
character to be upheld & protected.”
52. Another email to Plaintiff’s officials stated:
“The Governor just announce [sic] indoor gatherings no more than 25, that
means a homes [sic] capacity would be much smaller. I hope this means
enforcement to: . . . 71 E Connecticut Concourse . . . And bring peace & our
quality of life back to our neighborhoods.”
Terrance Wall, the Plaintiff’s Business Administrator, responded: “[W]hen you have time let’s
discuss”
53. In an email sent by Plaintiff’s Police Chief to Plaintiff’s Business Administrator
Wall, Chief Kunz reports: “An officer went to 71 East Connecticut Concourse following the
complaint to the township administration ‘there would be 100 people there’ the officer documented
the following: ‘Saw several males enter/exit home at various times’ The officer also noted that
both Code Enforcement and the complainant's vehicle were present. . . .While quite vague in his
reporting, it doesn't sound as the officer noted any executive order violations, as nothing more was
documented.” (Emphasis added.)
54. Upon information and belief, in late 2018, a Facebook group called “Rise Up Ocean
County” was formed.
55. On April 5, 2019, the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights wrote a letter to Mark
Zuckerberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Facebook, Inc. to bring attention to the comments on
the Rise Up Ocean County’s page “inciting violence against Orthodox Jews.”
56. The letter concluded:
You at Facebook also have a role to play in monitoring comments that incite
violence based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity
or expression, national origin, ancestry, and disability.
14
57. Upon information and belief, Rise Up Ocean County was removed from Facebook
in 2020.
58. Upon information and belief, Rise Up Ocean County now maintains internet and
Twitter pages.
59. Posts on the website Rise Up Ocean County, https://riseupoceancounty.com, about
the Property and the prayer gatherings there have included:
a. “Moshe Perlstein . . . he does not want to be a good neighbor, he does

not care about his community and for those reasons 71 East Connecticut
Concourse is our . . . battle. ”
b. “Perlstein . . . may as well have stood in East Connecticut Concourse

and screamed F@CK All Y’ALL!”
c. “On December 11, 2020 representatives of RUOC set up a video camera

to record the number . . . visiting the illegal synagogue. . . . On December
18, 2020 . . . I reached out to Business Administrator Terrance Wall
and zoning officer Jeff Purporo requesting that a code enforcement
officer be present.”
60. Following this purported December 18, 2020 communication by Rise Up Ocean
County to the Plaintiff that it posted about, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Jackson Township
Municipal Court on December 21, 2020 against the Defendant.
61. Rise Up Ocean County, according to its website, is recording the property
“24/7/365”
62. On July 12, 2021, Rise Up Ocean County posted on its website an email sent by,
upon information and belief, the website administrator, that “[w]hen inspectors departed the
property they left behind two red stickers . . . which caused me to have communication with various
Jackson Township officials on Friday July 9, 2021. The most telling of those conversations was
with Construction Official, Brent O’Connor and O’Connor who stated ‘There are structural defects
15
and safety concerns, there is no certificate of occupancy.’. . . it would then be illegal to occupy
the premises. . . . I visited the property, arriving at 7:00 pm, . . . I began recording activities of men
entering the subject premises . . . .”
63. That same post stated that the email “has been delivered to all of Jackson
Township’s elected officials, township attorney McGuckin and department heads of zoning, code
enforcement . . . .”
64. The email discussed alleged violations by the Defendant related to the Property
and further said “it is my fervent hope and expectation that Jackson Township will retroactively
issue summonses and prosecute the above offenses to the fullest extent allowed by law.”
65. That same day, the Plaintiff filed Complaints in the Jackson Township Municipal
Court against the Defendant for the alleged violations suggested in the email.
66. On July 15, 2021, Rise Up Ocean County posted that it had shared the “email that
we sent to Jackson Township officials detailing what we believed would be appropriate next
steps,” saying, “Today we take great pride in commending township officials for taking those steps
by issuing two new summonses to [Defendant] for failing to register as a landlord in Jackson
Township and failing to obtain a rental certificate of occupancy.”
67. Plaintiff has also been responsive to other individuals voicing hostility about the
Property and its prayer meetings at Plaintiff’s Council meetings.
68. On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff conducted a Township Council meeting, including a
time for public comment.
69. During the course of that meeting, a Township resident asked, “So what are we
doing about 71 East Connecticut Concourse, where nobody lives in the house?” Township
Attorney Greg McGuckin responded by saying that it was “in our hands and in our office...we are
16
doing what we need to do.” The resident then referred to the house as “another enforcement issue,
or lack thereof.”
70. On May 11, 2021, Plaintiff conducted another Township Council meeting.
71. During the course of that meeting, the Township Business Administrator indicated
that the Township Code Enforcement Official, Andrew Cheney, was there in part “to address the
reasonable questions and concerns that [the Township resident] had earlier.”
72. Mr. Cheney further indicated on the record with respect to the same Township
resident:
I take offense to her comment that [the resident] gets no response from code
enforcement. This is a copy of [the resident’s] email that we have back and
forth of various issues and various properties.
73. Jeff Purpuro specifically addressed the Property, adding right after “[t]hose are the
key points that were brought up at the last meeting by [Township Resident] . . . .”
74. During the course of that meeting, the Township resident addressed the Township
Council and Mayor as follows:
When it comes to zoning, 71 East Connecticut Concourse, this cease and

desist, those residents have been waiting on this cease and desist, I don't
know, a year. It's been a really long time.. . . .
It is no longer a home, the home has been vacated. It is a community center

being used as another use other than a home. And, you know, it is
completely in violation of New Jersey law, not just Jackson Code, it's in
violation of New Jersey law. And, I just don't understand how this has not
been raised to the level to finally bring it to county. I mean, at this point it
should.
75. After a discussion about the municipal court proceeding, the resident asked:
So at what point do we bring it to a higher level to enforce this?
....
17
So we have nothing on the books that we can't fine this resident every single
day for illegally occupying and using a residential home for a different use?
....
So when are we going to court again for 71 East Connecticut Concourse?
76. The Jackson Township’s hostility to the Orthodox Jewish community is now the
subject of several lawsuits against the Plaintiff.
77. In Oros Bais Yaakov High School v. Township of Jackson, NJ, et al., Docket No.
PW-L-2981-14 (Law Div.), a Jewish girl’s high school has filed suit against the Plaintiff alleging
discrimination as a result of its ordinances and denial of an application for use variance by the
Township of Jackson Zoning Board of Adjustment and anti-Semitic discrimination by both.
78. On May 8, 2017, Agudath Israel of America and WR Property LLC, an owner of
real property in Jackson Township, filed suit against the Plaintiff as a result of its enactment on
March 16, 2017 of Ordinances No. 03-17 and 04-17 (the “School Ordinances”) which banned
schools in residential zoning districts and dormitories throughout Jackson Township of Jackson,
as well as Ordinance 20-17 targeting eruvs. WR Prop. LLC v. Twp. of Jackson, Case No. 3:17-cv-
03226.
79. On February 3, 2020, Jackson Trails, LLC, whose principal is an Orthodox Jew,
filed suit against the Plaintiff and the Township of Jackson Planning Board in federal court alleging
that the Defendants’ hostility toward the Orthodox Jewish community resulted in the denial of a
fully conforming application to the Planning Board for a housing development, where Orthodox
Jews may purchase homes.
80. On May 20, 2020, the United States Department of Justice filed suit against Jackson
Township and its Planning Board as a result of the same discriminatory ordinances as above.
United States of America v. Township of Jackson, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06109 (pending the
18
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the Agudath
Israel of America matter for discovery purposes).
81. On May 5, 2021, the Honorable Michael A. Shipp, U.S.D.J., entered an Order
against the Plaintiff preliminarily enjoining Jackson Township from enforcing Ordinances 03-17
and 20-17 in the matter of WR Prop. LLC v. Twp. of Jackson, CV173226MASDEA, 2021 WL
1790642, (D.N.J. May 5, 2021).
82. The Plaintiffs in that action had challenged the Township’s ordinances, contending
that were intended to prevent Orthodox Jews from opening schools and dormitories and erecting
eruvs in Jackson. The suit alleges that the Ordinances were enacted with the express purpose of
such anti-Orthodox Jewish discrimination and are in clear violation of Federal law.
83. The federal court found that “Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence in support of
their argument that the ordinances were passed with a discriminatory purpose” and that “the
testimony in the record, in conjunction with the hostility expressed by Township residents and
officials, supports a finding that anti-Semitic animus was a motivating factor in the passage of the
ordinances.”
84. A common theme in these lawsuits is the Plaintiff’s responsiveness to anti-Semitic
residents.
85. On April 27, 2021, Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey
filed a complaint against the Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, Attorney
General of New Jersey v. the Township of Jackson, Docket No. OCN-C-64-21, alleging:
“Since around 2015, a vocal group of Jackson residents have complained to

the Township about the number of Orthodox Jews moving to Jackson.
These resident complaints often expressed a generalized animus against
Orthodox Jewish people, culture, and religious practice. Residents wrote to
Township officials raising alarm about an ‘extremist religious group’
seeking to ‘take over our town’ and ‘destroy our neighborhoods.’ Residents
19
amplified these grievances through social media with hateful rhetoric,

saying that ‘the gang war has begun’ and ‘[w]e need to get rid of them like
Hitler did.
Complaining residents expressed increasing fear and disgust at the prospect

of Orthodox Jews moving to the town in their many emails to the Township,
stating that Jackson would become a “sub-division of Lakewood”—a
neighboring township with more than 50,000 Orthodox Jewish residents.
Lakewood is considered a hub of Orthodox Jewish life in New Jersey and
is home to the second largest yeshiva in the world. Urging Township
officials that “[w]e do not want Lakewood’s mess in Jackson,” complaining
residents demanded that Township officials “[s]tay strong” and “get clever
and figure out a way to preserve the quality of life in Jackson.”
86. The action taken against the Property and the Defendant is, upon information and
belief, one of these ways to “preserve the quality of life in Jackson,” i.e., to prevent Orthodox Jews
from moving to Jackson Township.
87. Under federal law, it is clearly established that governmental actors may not
substantially burden religious exercise without using the least restrictive means of achieving a
compelling interest, or discriminate against a religious assembly or institution on the basis of
religion or religious denomination.
88. Under New Jersey constitutional law, it is clearly established that an individual may
use his or her home for limited religious services and activities.
89. The actions taken by Plaintiff against the Defendant were malicious and in bad
faith.
90. The actions taken by Plaintiff against the Defendant have been for the sole purpose
of harassing the Defendant in an effort to prohibit religious prayer gatherings at the Property.
91. Plaintiff has taken this action despite its own former code enforcement official
acknowledging the legality of such prayer gatherings in one’s home:
20
Yes, one of the key points is that the residence is not being used as a Shul.
It is being lived in as a residence and then utilized for prayer service
(therefor (sic) dual purpose) for instance on Friday evening. This is allowed.
(Emphasis added.)
92. The actions taken by Plaintiff against the Defendant violated the Defendant’s
clearly established statutory and constitutional rights.
93. Plaintiff is well aware of RLUIPA as a result of the other lawsuits pending against
it.
94. The Plaintiff’s actions described above all took place under color of state law.
95. Upon information and belief, the Township has never taken similar action against
a prayer group, Bible study, or worship service conducted by a religious organization that was not
Orthodox Jewish.
96. The harm to the Defendant caused by the Plaintiff’s laws and actions, which prevent
it from using the Property to accommodate his religious needs, is immediate and severe.
97. Plaintiff’s laws and actions imminently threaten to substantially burden the
Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.
98. There are no quick, reliable and viable alternative options for the Defendant’s
religious exercise.
99. The Defendant has no adequate remedy at law for the harm and damage caused by
Plaintiff’s wrongful laws and actions.
100. The Defendant has also suffered significant harm as a result of the Plaintiff’s laws
and their application to the Defendant.
COUNT I
21
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 – “Substantial Burdens”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)
101. Paragraphs 1 through 100 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
102. Plaintiff has deprived and continues to deprive the Defendant of his right to the free
exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by implementing land use regulations in a manner
that places substantial burden on the Defendant’s religious exercise without using the least
restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest.
COUNT II
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 – “Nondiscrimination”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(2)
104. Plaintiff has deprived and continues to deprive the Defendant of his right to the free
exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by implementing land use regulations in a manner
that discriminates against the Defendant on the basis of religion and religious denomination.
COUNT III
United States Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment
Free Exercise of Religion
106. Defendant has deprived and continues to deprive the Plaintiff of his right to free
exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by implementing land use regulations in a
manner that burdens the Defendant’s religious exercise without using the least restrictive means
22
of achieving a compelling governmental interest, and discriminates against the Defendant on the
basis of religion in a manner that is not the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling
governmental interest.
COUNT IV
United States Constitution

42 U.S.C. § 1983: Fourteenth Amendment
Equal Protection
108. Plaintiff has deprived and continues to deprive the Defendant of his right to equal
protection of the laws, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
by implementing and imposing land use regulations as applied in a manner that discriminates
against him on the basis of religion.
COUNT V
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12.5
110. By denying Defendant, on the basis of religion, the opportunity to obtain the
accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of ownership of real property, Plaintiff
violated and continues to violate Defendant’s rights under the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1, et seq.
111. Plaintiff’s conduct has caused significant damage to Defendant.
23
112. Plaintiff is liable for the damage caused to Defendant, and should be enjoined
from further violating Defendant’s rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant the following
relief:
A. An order enjoining the Plaintiff, its officers, employees, agents, successors and all
others acting in concert with them from applying their laws in a manner that violates
the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, New Jersey law or undertaking any and all action
in furtherance of these acts;
B. An order compelling the Plaintiff, its officers, employees, and/or agents to rescind all
Complaints, fines and notices of violation issued to the Defendant arising out of the use
of the property, and in particular the following:
a. Complaint No. SC 2020 18234 issued on 10/16/2020, pending in the Jackson
Township Municipal Court.
b. Complaint No. SC 2020 18235 issued on 12/21/2020, pending in the Jackson
c. Complaint No. SC 2021 15969 issued on 07/12/2021, pending in the Jackson
d. Complaint No. SC 2021 15970 issued on 07/12/2021, pending in the Jackson
e. Complaint No. SC 2021 18663 issued on 07/14/2021, pending in the Jackson
C. An award to the Defendant of full costs and attorneys’ fees arising out of Plaintiff’s
actions and land use decisions and out of this litigation; and
D. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
24
Pursuant to Rule 4:25-4, Yosef Jacobovitch, Esq., has been designated as trial counsel in
connection with this matter.
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify to the best of my personal knowledge that the within Complaint is not the
subject of any other action pending in any court or arbitration proceeding nor is any other action
contemplated, other than the Complaints pending in the Municipal Court of the Township of
Jackson involving the parties. Defendant further certifies that no other parties are known who
should be joined pursuant to R. 4:28 or who is subject to joinder pursuant to R. 4:29-1(b) in the
within action.
RULE 4:6-1 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify to the best of my personal knowledge that the within pleading was served
within the time period contemplated by Rule 4:6-1.
BURTON JACOBOVITCH LAW GROUP
/s/ Yosef Jacobovitch (Bar No. 098292015)

Attorneys at Law
500 River Avenue
Suite 215
Lakewood, New Jersey 08701
STORZER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
/s/ Sieglinde K. Rath (Bar No. 048131991)

9433 Common Brook Rd
Suite 208
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117
Attorneys for Defendant
25

Perlstein Response To Jackson Township

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perlstein Response To Jackson Township

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCN-C-000099-21 07/23/2021 12:24:10 PM Pg 1 of 25 Trans ID: CHC2021144610

BURTON JACOBOVITCH LAW GROUP LLP

STORZER & ASSOCIATES P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant

TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, NJ, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Defendant, MOSHE DOVID PERLSTEIN, by way of Answer to the Complaint, states:

1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the

the Plaintiff to its proofs.

7. Defendant admits that “The Township Zoning Department issued Notices of

action, the Defendant denies the allegations.

12. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the

FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff or by persons not under the control of this Defendant.

FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

TWELFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

claims are barred by the same.

THIRTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

claims are barred by the same.

FOURTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

FIFTEENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

investigation and discovery may indicate are appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint and

an award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Defendant, Moshe David Perlstein, with an address of 71 East Connecticut Concourse,

1. Defendant files these Counterclaims to redress violations of his civil rights

caused by the Plaintiff’s intentional conduct in engaging in a continuing pattern of

harassment and intimidation designed to disrupt Defendant’s Orthodox Jewish religious

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A 10:5-1, et seq.

2. This orchestrated campaign of harassment by the Plaintiff against the

Defendant includes burdensome inspections at the Defendant’s property, 71 E. Connecticut

scheduling of hearings in the Jackson Township Municipal Court.

3. Defendant, David Moshe Perlstein, is a United States citizen and a resident

of the state of New Jersey.

4. Defendant TOWNSHIP OF JACKSON, NJ is a municipal corporation of

5. On or about September 20, 2019, Defendant purchased the Property.

been leased to other individuals.

Rabbi Shmuel Perlstein.

religious prayer and activity.

at the Property are permitted pursuant to New Jersey state law.

at the Property do not violate Plaintiff’s zoning code.

against the Defendant in the Jackson Township Municipal Court:

a. Complaint Number SC 2020 18234 issued on 10/16/2020, LAND USE &

b. Complaint Number SC 2020 18235 issued on 12/21/2020, LAND USE &

interior of the home on the Property.

2021, and May 6, 2021.

18. The hearing is presently scheduled for December 31, 2021.

Order at the Property.

Construction Order at the Property.

Code of the Township of Jackson.

Restraining Order on June 29, 2021.

there is a safety risk.”

Property to conduct the inspection of the same.

the Defendant in the Jackson Township Municipal Court: