Skip To Content

Our Work

Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Victorious: Efforts to Block Free Exercise of Religion Thwarted

On September 9, 2010, plaintiff Forras, a former firefighter, brought a class action lawsuit for damages, in the amount of $350,000,000, allegedly sustained by him and others as a result of the proposed development of a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero. The complaint named the developers of a mosque and Islamic cultural center as defendants. Based on the need to defend against religious and ethnic prejudice, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. took on the case pro bono, that is, as a public service without charge.

The plaintiff alleged that the planned community center was a public nuisance, and that its very existence constituted an intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. vigorously defended the rights of the defendants by immediately filing a motion to dismiss. The motion papers included, among others, defenses based on the fundamental rights guaranteed to all Americans by the United States Constitution including that, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, people are entitled to the free exercise of their religion. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. argued that intrinsic in that right, is the right to construct a house of worship and that the firm’s clients’ decision to build an Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan was consistent with the free exercise of their religion, and thus protected by the First Amendment. Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. also argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff had failed to properly set forth any claims.

Justice Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, in her decision on November 14, 2012, agreed with virtually every argument put forth by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. in its motion and dismissed the case in its entirety. The court held that even under the very forgiving standard by which a motion to dismiss must be decided, the plaintiff failed to show “any nuisance, extreme or outrageous conduct as required for infliction of emotional distress, or assaultive conduct that would emanate from a religious institution.” She held that the complaint failed to plead any cognizable causes of action against the defendants.

Adam Leitman Bailey, Dov Treiman, Colin Kaufman, Peter Reid, and Courtney Lerias represented Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. in the case and on the motion.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.