Supreme Court Stays Sale Of 100 Year Old Boro Park Shul

21

A developer entered into a contract for the purchase of a shul at  4024-12th Avenue in Boro Park, Brooklyn, with plans to demolish the shul and and build condominiums in its place. Mispallelim challenged the sale in court and sought a stay, contending that that the sale did not comply with the procedural requirements of the law.

The Court has granted the stay, finding that the Mispalelim are “likely to prevail” in the action.

“The chances of  the stay being reversed on appeal are remote,” attorney AaronTyk told Matzav.com. “The affidavits and documents submitted appear to support the Court’s conclusion.”

Read the document here.

{CB Frommer-Matzav.com}

21 COMMENTS

  1. Nowhere in the document does it say they are “likely to prevail”.

    What it does say, is simply by protesting the demolition, a TRO is granted. This is due to the irreparable harm done should they be successful. The judge considered this lesser standard of “likelihood of success” when granting the temporary restraining order.

    And the judge specifically allowed the developer to continue to work with the DOB to ensure that the proper permits are filed, and that their plan, once successful, continue without a loss for the developer.

  2. Unbelievably tremendous ahavas yisroel shown on both sides. Kiddush Hashem. Me Ki’amcha yisroel?
    Going to secular courts?

  3. “Yitzchok m”
    This is not the TRO of August; this is the preliminary injunction of 11/22/17.
    read page 24; “likelihood to succeed on the merits”

  4. Karka Ain Nigzeles “EXCEPT ” in **** **** and in ******** and in ******** and in ******** where Karka IS IS NIGZELES !!!!!!!!!! But, in the rest of the world, we still PASKEN that Karka Ain Nigzeles !!!!!!!!!

  5. what is the basis to challenge the sale , the sale was a win win replace crumbling shul w a new shul and more housing what was the case against the deal?

  6. To the above well-wishes,

    The judge clearly defines what he considers to be the criteria of likelihood of success on page 24. He states that due to the Irreplaceable harm following through with this plan will bring to the petitioners should they be correct, he’s using a “reduced standard” of “likelihood of success”.

    He continues using that standard on Page 27.

    In short, since the judge believes that the petitioners may prevail in court – not will – he’s granting the temporary injunction.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here