City of Albany v Trinity Church

[*1] City of Albany v Trinity Church 2006 NY Slip Op 52420(U) [14 Misc 3d 1205(A)] Decided on December 20, 2006 City Court Of Albany Stiglmeier, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 20, 2006
City Court of Albany

City of Albany, Plaintiff,

against

Trinity Church c/o Rev. Maurice E. Drown, Defendant.



CDE No. 06-184 & 185



John J. Reilly, Esq.

Corporation Counsel

Assistant Corporation Danielle Neroni, Esq. Counsel

City Hall, Room 106

Albany, New York 12207

Tocci, Parker & Tocci, LLP

Jonathan G. Schopf, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

1698 Central Avenue

Albany, New York12205

Gary F. Stiglmeier, J.

Defendant has been cited by Information for a violation of Albany City Code § 375-9(A) [Changing the permitted use of the building without a permit] and §133-13(B) [Occupying a building without a valid certificate of occupancy]. It is undisputed that the defendant (Trinity Church a/k/a Trinity Methodist Church) is the owner of the subject property located at 235 Lark Street a/k/a 215 Lancaster Street in Albany, New York. Defendant was arraigned on July 20, 2006, entered a plea of "not guilty", and filed a motion to dismiss. The City then filed superseding informations on December 1, 2006, and defendant was arraigned thereon. Defendant renewed his motion, given the filing of the superseding informations. The City responded through the affirmation in opposition of Assistant Corporation Counsel Danielle Neroni, Esq. The matter now comes before the Court for a decision. [*2]

1.The defendant's motion for an order, pursuant to CPL §§170.30(1)(a) and 170.35(1)(a), dismissing the informations on the grounds that the informations are facially insufficient and defective, is denied. An information is sufficient on its face when it (1) substantially conforms to the requirements of CPL §100.15 and (2) sets forth allegations which "provide reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense charged" and (3) contains non-hearsay allegations which "establish, if true, every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" [CPL §100.40(1)]. People v. Alejandro, 70 NY2d 133, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1987). This third requirement is also known as the prima facie case requirement. The Alejandro Court further held that failure to comply with the "prima facie case" requirement is a jurisdictional defect.Albany City Code § 375-9(A) states in pertinent part that "[n]o person shall construct, alter, add to or convert any structure or part thereof nor change the use of any land or property without a valid zoning and building permit issued by the Commissioner". Albany City Code §133-13(B) states in pertinent part that "[n]o land shall be occupied or used and no building hereafter erected or altered shall be occupied or used, in whole or in part, for any purpose whatsoever until a certificate of occupancy shall have been issued by the Commissioner of Buildings stating that the premises or buildings comply with all the provisions of this Part 1. No change or extension of use and no alteration shall be made in a nonconforming use or premises without a certificate of occupancy having first been issued by the Commissioner of Buildings that such change, extension or alteration is in conformity with the provisions of this Part 1".The Court notes that "the prima facie case requirement is not the same as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial". People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677 (1999). "So long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading". People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354 (2000). Upon review of the informations herein, this Court finds that each of the informations is sufficient on its face, pursuant to CPL §§100.15, 100.40. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss on this basis is denied.

2.The defendant moves for an order dismissing the charges filed against it on the ground that the charges have been issued in direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as made applicable to the States by incorporation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §3 of the Constitution of the State of New York, regarding separation of Church and State. The City argues that its Building Code and Zoning laws (and specifically those sections at issue in this case) are valid, content neutral laws of general applicability, adopted to [*3]promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the public. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " (US Constitution, Amdt 1, emphasis added). The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such" (Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398, 402).But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession, but the performance of physical acts: Assembling with others for the purpose of worship or the discussion of religious beliefs, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, and proselytizing. A municipality would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display (Employment Div. v Smith, 494 US 872).Defendant, however, seeks to extend the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one step further. Trinity Church contends that its religious motivations for the use of the building place it beyond the reach of the Building Code and Zoning laws of the City of Albany, which are not specifically directed at religious practice, and that are undeniably constitutional as applied to those who use buildings in Albany for other than religious reasons. Individuals' religious beliefs do not excuse them from compliance with otherwise valid laws prohibiting conduct that a municipality is free to regulate. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v Gobitis, 310 US 586, 594-595, "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities (footnote omitted).Accordingly, defendant's motion for an order dismissing the charges filed against it on Constitutional grounds is denied, as the applicable Building Code and Zoning laws of the City of Albany are not specifically directed at defendant's religious practices, but are valid, content neutral laws of general applicability, adopted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the public.

3.Defendant's additional request for an immediate Court Order allowing defendant the right to continue its "youth musical program" until a trial is held in this action is denied.

All other aspects of defendant's motions not expressly granted herein are hereby denied. This opinion constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. The matter is set down for trial on February 2, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.

So ordered. [*4]

Dated at Albany, New York

December 20, 2006

__________________________________

Gary F. Stiglmeier

Albany City Court Judge