Saunders, Real Estate, Hamptons

5 Comments by Morris Tuchman

Tenafly eruv battle resonates in Westhampton Beach

I just wanted to point out that the "Smith v Community Board" case, is binding authority for Suffolk County.(Tenafly is certainly pursuasive, but Smith is binding)
In that case, the City's leasing ITS light poles, and permitting stringing lines on those City owned poles (amongst other things), did not improperly entangle government in religion under both the federal and state constituitions." Aug 29, 08 10:27 AM

Religious gathering garners attention in village

Sane; Do you get a ticket even if you do nothing wrong? Mr. Houlihan says that there's nothing wrong with the prayer gathering.
Michael A.; right on! perfect comment!" Sep 3, 08 9:21 PM

Kabot honors first responders

I am so pleased that Glen Dorskind's selfless caring for others has been recognized. I am proud to be his friend and co congregant. " Dec 3, 08 8:23 PM

Southampton Town Will No Longer Fight Establishment Of Religious Boundary

As a lawyer and litigant in this case, just settled, I make the following points in the one comment that I will make on the issues Highhat opines about
1) the telephone poles upon which lechis are unobtrusively placed are, PRIVATE not public property. They belong to LIPA and Verizon, not the public. Indeed, WHB has signed leases with them to use these poles in the past.
2) Government, as opposed to creches, etc. green road lines in the streets on ST Patrick day etc., will pay NOTHING to place or maintain the lechis. Private funds only will be used.
3) Both the Second and Third Circuit courts of Appeals, as well as every court, state or federal, to consider this issue, has held that the placement of PERMANENT lechis does not violate the establishment clause. The Second Circuit noted that lechis attachment are much less problematic for several reasons than all other government involvement in religion. As there is virtual unanimous agreement and because there is no circuit court split, there is so little likelihood of Supreme Court review that the appellant in the Second Circuit case did not even bother to seek Supreme Court review. WHB, in open court, stated that it was not "foolish" enough to continue to argue an establishment clause violation after the Second Circuit's published opinion.
I just want to finish by subscribing to your entirely correct description of Highhat and his factually and legally wrong assertions. Unlike him, everything that I have stated is easily proven as it is in the public record. " Aug 31, 15 9:26 PM

Southampton Town Will No Longer Contest Boundary's Expansion To Westhampton

Should be "US", Not "state", Supreme court.
Also all observant Jews benefit from an Eruv, not just those praying at the Hampton Synagogue. " Sep 9, 15 8:04 PM