Sheepshead Bay Patriots File Lawsuit Against Islamic Supremacist Mega-Mosque on Tree-Lined, Residential Street

Why here?

Kudos to the Bay People. The good people of Sheepshead Bay are fighting back against the Islamic supremacist steamroller barreling down their residential, tree-lined street in an attempt to build a giant mosque despite a flagrant violation of city and local laws and ordinances.

I have been posting on the flagrant Islamic supremacist violation of work orders and ordinances on a small residential street in Sheepshead Bay, in obvious contempt for the rule of law. The good people of Voorhies Avenue took to protesting every day in front of the wall obscuring the illegal construction of a Muslim Brotherhood mega-mosque on the quiet, tree-lined block. And they wull continue to protest to expose the supremacists and their government shills.

The buildings department and city offficials had turned a blind eye to this gross violation of the law. On this quiet street the illegal construction of a mega-mosque was going up at warp speed, despite violation after violation. The Bay People are fighting these gross violations legally and through the system.

We exposed their collusion and corruption, and in early February evening the city halted illegal construction of the Muslim Brotherhood MAS mosque. BTW, the local media calls the mosque an "Islamic Cultural Center," taking their cues from the deceivers behind the Ground Zero mosque.

Today the Bay People filed a lawsuit against the radicals building this rabat.

Here's the latest from The Bay People:

Last week our litigation attorneys, Law Offices of Albert K. Butzel, filed a complaint in Kings County Supreme Court against Allowey Ahmed, other possible owners, architects and construction company of the mosque/community center at 2812 Voorhies Avenue. Please see the attachment for details.  In the lawsuit Bay People Inc., and other plaintiffs ask the court to issue a preliminary injunction against the construction until the case is decided by the courts. Plaintiffs base their causes of action on:
The construction of the Building violates the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, in that it does not include accessory on-site parking spaces, as required by Section 25-31 of the Zoning Resolution. DOB’s issuance of building permits for the Building was illegal because it failed to enforce the Zoning Resolution and require at least 13 accessory on-site parking spaces.
As a consequence of the failure to provide accessory on-site parking spaces, traffic congestion will be increased and parking opportunities in the neighborhood will be diminished.   The plaintiffs who live in close proximity to the Building site will be specially damaged as a result, but all the plaintiffs will suffer injury because of the diminution in the quality of the neighborhood.
Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable damage as they pursue their administrative remedies unless the construction of the Building is enjoined pending the outcome of the administrative process    Consequently, the plaintiffs ask this court to issue a preliminary injunction to avoid further damage pending that outcome.
Construction and operation of the Building will result in “significant objectionable influences” in a residential area, in violation of the requirements of Section 22-14 of the Zoning Resolution.   
The construction of the Building is unreasonably interfering with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property and diminishing the value of their properties, to their special damage, and the construction activities constitute an immediate nuisance with respect to the plaintiffs’ property.
If the Building is completed and operates as a house of worship, it and its operations will unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment, and further diminish the value, of their property, to their special damage, and the Building will constitute a continuing nuisance with respect to the plaintiffs’ property.
Further factual documents supporting the preliminary injunction will be filed with the court within the next month.

Fundraising Activity
 
This lawsuit has just started! We need your support to sustain the fight!!! Our finances are open and transparent and we will gladly answer all your questions.

Contributions to our cause can be made online via PayPal (www.BayPeople.org) or by sending a check or money order payable to:
 
BayPeople Inc.
1421 Sheepshead Bay Rd.
Post Mail Box 288
Brooklyn, NY 11235
 
We sincerely appreciate your support and always look forward to hearing from you!!!
 
Bay People Inc.
Please visit us at www.BayPeople.org, write to [email protected]

Bay People was created by a group of Sheepshead Bay neighborhood residents.  We are not affiliated with any political party and our activists do not share common religion, race or heritage.  We voluntarily dedicate hundreds of hours of our time to this project, and cover most expenses ourselves. We welcome every resident who wants to participate, and always look forward to hearing from you.

If you have some extra change, please help them fight this. They are trying desperately to save their dear neighborhood.

Voorhies Avenue is a beautiful little street in Sheepshead Bay. Small, pretty, well-cared for homes line the street. There are no stores, churches, synagogues or businesses there. So why would the Muslim Brotherhood want to build a beachhead there? There are no Muslims who live on the street and not many in the neighborhood. Why there?

MAS has ignored procedure, flouted the law and violated stop work orders. They respect the sharia (Islamic law). American rule of law? Not so much.

The neighborhood coalition that opposes the mosque wants to keep the street residential and quiet. Hardly unreasonable. The idea of a giant mosque, out of all proportion to the other homes on the street, is offensive. The traffic, congestion, noise, and call to prayer change the landscape of this otherwise quiet street. Don't neighborhoods have a say about what can or cannot be built? Don't neighborhoods have a right to preserve the sanctity of their streets and their homes? The MAS Islamic supremacists have been consistently dishonest. Their obfuscation, misrepresentation of the project and morphing mosque design hardly instill confidence that they are being straight about anything. And their lawyer is a radical freakazoid — of the Islamic Jew hating variety.

Previously: Illegal Mosque Construction in Brooklyn: Government Collusion

Stopping a Muslim Brotherhood Mega-Mosque on a Quiet Brooklyn Block

A Mega-Mosque Grows on a Quiet Residential Brooklyn Street: Why There?

Islamic Imperialism in Brooklyn

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS
Plaintiffs, by their attorney, allege as follows:
NATURE OF CASE
Index No. 30737/2010
VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT
——————————————————————————-x
XXX XXX, XXX XXX, XXX XXX, XXX XXX, XXX XXX, XXX XXX, BAY PEOPLE, INC. and SHORE TERRACE COOPERATIVE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
AKHTAR CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ALLOWEY AHMED. 2004-000088 LLC, NOORATA PE, P.C., PLATONIC SOLIDS ARCHTECTURE, P.C., AB DESIGN BUILD CORP. and M.A.S. SHEEPSHEAD BAY CENTER, INC.,
Defendants, —————————————————————————–x

Index No. ____________
Hon. ________________ IAS Part ____
1.    This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Section 3001 of the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) and for injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR § 6301 against the owners of property at 2812-14 Voorhies Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, and certain other parties, who are seeking to build and operate an Islamic house of worship (the “Building”) in the middle of a residential neighborhood in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn. The Building is being constructed at a midblock location (the “Building Site”) that is surrounded by residences; and, if and when completed, it would accommodate more than 300 people. Calls to prayer would be broadcast five times a day, as is required in the Islamic religion, and both before and after services at the Building, as well as at other times, the block on which it would be located would be backed up with vehicle traffic in this residential area. The Building is under construction at this time, despite the failure of its sponsors to provide required on-site parking spaces; and both now and on its completion, it will create and constitute a nuisance for the residents living on Voorhies Avenue, including the plaintiffs who live next door to it. The plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the construction of the Building as in violation of the New York City Zoning Resolution and as creating and constituting a private nuisance with regard to the plaintiffs.
2.    The Plaintiffs seek judgment and an order pursuant to CPLR Sections 3001 and 6301 for, inter alia, the following relief:
a.    Declaring that construction of the Building violates the New York City Zoning Resolution, including, in particular, those sections of the Resolution that mandate that on-site parking space be provided for the facility;
2
b.    Declaring that the Building is and will constitute a nuisance with respect to the plaintiffs;
c.    Enjoining the Defendants and their employees and agents from taking any action to construct, or further construction of, the Building;
d.    Granting the Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against any construction pending the final outcome of this case;
e.    Awarding the Plaintiffs their fees and disbursements in this action; and f.    Granting the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS 3.    Plaintiffs XXXX and XXX own and reside in the property known by the street
address XXXX East 28th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11235. Their home is in an entirely residential neighborhood in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, and their property abuts and overlooks the Building Site. They have standing to bring this lawsuit because they are directly and adversely affected by the actions herein complained of, including the construction of the Building without onsite parking spaces, which will result in greater congestion on 28th Street and other streets in the neighborhood, and also because traffic generated by the Building, the noise created by the calls to prayer, and the immediate impacts of construction constitute and will constitute a nuisance with respect to such plaintiffs.
3
4.    Plaintiffs XXX XXX AND XXX XXX own and reside in the property known by the street address XXXX East 28th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11235. Their home is in an entirely residential neighborhood in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, and their property directly abuts and overlooks the Building Site. They have standing to bring this lawsuit because they are directly and adversely affected by the actions herein complained of, including the construction of the Building without onsite parking spaces, which will result in greater congestion on 28th Street and other streets in the neighborhood, and also because traffic generated by the Building, the noise created by the calls to prayer, and the immediate impacts of construction constitute and will constitute a nuisance with respect to such plaintiffs,
5.    Plaintiffs XXX XXXX and XXX XXX own and reside in the property known by the street address XXXX Voorhies Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11235. Their home is in an entirely residential neighborhood in the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, and their property is directly across the street from and overlooks the Building Site. They have standing to bring this lawsuit because they are directly and adversely affected by the actions herein complained of, including the construction of the Building without onsite parking spaces, which will result in greater congestion on Voorhies Avenue and other streets in the neighborhood, and also because traffic generated by the Building, the noise created by the calls to prayer, and the immediate impacts of construction constitute and will constitute a nuisance with respect to such plaintiffs.
4
6.    BAY PEOPLE, INC. is a New York corporation whose mission is to protect and improve the quality of life in the residential neighborhoods of Sheepshead Bay. It was organized in 2009 to focus on and oppose the construction of the Building, which it regards as an inappropriate and oversized use in the midst of one of Sheepshead Bay’s quietest residential neighborhood. At this date, Bay People, Inc. has over 1,000 supporting or contributing members, many of whom live in close proximity to the Building Site and are directly and adversely impacted by construction of the Building in the same manner as described above for the six individual plaintiffs. Bay People, Inc. has standing to sue in that one or more of its members has standing to sue, the interests it advances here are sufficiently germane to the organization’s purpose so as to make it an appropriate representative of those interests; and the participation of Bay People’s individual members is not required to assert this claim or afford complete relief. Members of Bay People, Inc. who are particularly affected by the illegal actions herein complained of are the individual plaintiffs herein, whose facts are set forth supra.
7.    Plaintiff SHORE TERRACE COOPERATIVE, INC (“Shore Terrace”) is a New York corporation which is the owner of the property known by the street address 2817 East 28th Street, Brooklyn, New York (the “Co-op”). The Co-op, which consists of four residential, multiple dwelling cooperative apartment buildings and the surrounding common areas, includes a total of 260 cooperative apartments. The Co-op is located on the same block as and abuts the Building Site, and a number of the apartments look out to or over the site. Shore Terrace has standing
5
to bring this suit in that it and the residents of its apartments are directly and adversely affected by the actions herein complained of, including the construction of the Building without onsite parking spaces, which will result in greater congestion on East 28th Street and other streets in the neighborhood, and also because traffic generated by the Building, the noise created by the calls to prayer, and the immediate impacts of construction constitute and will constitute a nuisance with respect to such Shore Terrace and its cooperative residents. In addition, excavation of the Building Site is adversely affecting an underground parking garage within the Co-op.
DEFENDANTS On information and belief, Defendant ALLOWEY AHMED (or Ahmed
8. Allowey) is a resident of Brooklyn, New York and, according to the City property records, is the owner of one of both of the lots, known by the street address of 2812 and 2814 Voorhies Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, which constitute the Building site.
9.    On information and belief, defendant 2004-000088 LLC is a Virginia LLC with a principal place of business at 11109 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 200, Reston Virginia 20190. A
ccording to the City property records, 2004-000088 LLC owns or may own one of the lots that constitute the Building Site or may have a financing or security interest in one or both of such lots.
10.    On information and belief, Defendant NOORATA PE, P.C is New York corporation with its principal place of business at in Whitestone, New York and is the contracted structural engineer for the Building.
6
11.    On information and belief, Defendant PLATONIIC SOLIDS ARCHI- TECTURE, P.C. is a New York corporation with principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York, and is the contracted architect and planner for the Building.
12.    On information and belief, defendant AB DESIGN BUILD CORP. is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York and is the company responsible for constructing the Building.
13.    On information and belief, Defendant M.A.S. SHEEPSHEAD BAY CENTER (the “M.A.S. Sheepshead”) is part of, or an affiliate of, the Muslim American Society in New York, a not for profit organization affiliated with the Muslim American Society of America. M.A.S Sheepshead has an office at 1933 Bath Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11214. M.A.S. Sheepshead is identified as the owner of the Building Site on the signage posted at the site. While the City’s on-line property records continue to show defendant Ahmed Allowey as the owner of the Building site, M.A.S Sheepshead is joined as a defendant in case there has been an unrecorded transfer of owner-ship or M.A.S. Sheepshead is a contract-vendee of the site.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
14.The Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn in the vicinity of Voorhies Avenue is and has been for many years a residential area of single family homes and larger cooperative apartment buildings. The streets in the area, other than the main avenues, are relatively narrow and cannot support large volumes of traffic without backing up.
15.The area of Sheepshead Bay surrounding the Building Site, from 26th Street to
7
Nostrand Avenue north of the Shore Parkway, is compromised almost entirely of single family detached and semi-detached two-story homes, most of which do not have garages. The principal exceptions are Shore Terrace, which includes four six-story buildings between 28th Street and Nostrand Avenue, and Public School 52 between 29th Street and Nostrand Avenue. The quiet residential character of the neighborhood is the fundamental asset of the community and has been for many years.
16.Because most of the homes in the area surrounding the Building site do not have garages, most residents must park on the streets. In recognition of this, the City allows parking on both sides of the streets, without any alternative side parking restrictions. The result is the parking lanes on both sides of the streets, including Voorhies Avenue, are always or nearly always fully occupied. This reduces the area for moving vehicles to one lane on many streets and two relatively narrow lanes on Voorhies Avenue, which runs two ways. As a consequence, when cars or trucks stand or double park, it is impossible for two vehicles to pass on Voorhies Avenue and backups result.
17.For many years, the Building Site was occupied by a single family house that was one of the series of such homes that line Voorhies Avenue between 26th and 29th Streets. That structure was of the same character as those that surrounded and stood opposite it and constituted a integral part of residential fabric of the neighborhood.
18.In or about February 2007, defendant Ahmed Allowey purchased the property
8
constituting the Building Site from Louis and Adeline Shrem. On information and belief, Mr. Allowey did not disclose that he was purchasing the property to support a house of worship, and neither the sellers nor others in the neighborhood had any idea that that was the purpose of the purchase.
19.In 2009, the plaintiffs and others in the neighborhood learned that a house of worship was being proposed for the Building Site in the middle of the residential neighbor-hood. They did not believe this made sense, because there were few, if any, Muslims residing in the neighborhood and the main community of Muslims lived some distance away. This suggested that many of the worshipers would have to drive to the Building, which the plaintiffs knew would clog Voorhies Avenue and some of the surrounding streets.
20.The plaintiffs were also concerned about the calls to prayer that would be broadcast five times a day from the Building, which would intrude on the quiet character of the neighborhood; and when they learned of the potential size of the congregation, they realized that the Building would draw crowds, believed to be well in excess of 300 persons, that would be incompatible with the residential character of the area.
21.As a consequence of their belief that the Building would be incompatible with the neighborhood’s character, the plaintiff, including Bay People, Inc., which had been organized to address the concerns of plaintiffs and others, took steps to petition the govern-ment for redress of their grievances, seeking, in particular, to stop the construction of the Building. Such steps have included, but not been limited to,
9
asking the New York City Department of Buildings to reject the plans for the Building, seeking the support of elected officials, and publicizing as best they could their concerns about the situation.
22.Notwithstanding these efforts, on November 12, 2010, after considerable uncertainty, the New York City Department of Buildings (“DOB”) issued building permits for the Building, which allowed a three-story house of worship to be constructed on the Building Site.
23.On November 29, 2010, Bay People, Inc., on behalf of itself and others, filed a protest with DOB regarding the issuance of the buildings permits. The protest, which was submitted by GoldmanHarris LLC, land use attorneys for Bay People, identified a number of ways in which the plans for the Building did not comply with the Building Code, and asked DOB to review the matter.
24.On December 8, 2010, GoldmanHarris LLC, on behalf of Bay People and its members, filed with DOB a formal challenge to the granting of the building permits for the Building. The principal basis for the challenge was (and is) that the Building plan does not include any on-site off street parking, as required by the Zoning Resolution for “community facilities” in residential neighborhoods. The challenge asserted (and asserts) that under the Zoning Resolution, 13 spaces are required, but none have been provided.
25.On February 10, 2011, DOB rejected the challenge filed by GoldmanHarris LLC on behalf of Bay People. GoldmanHarris is now preparing to the appeal the DOB ruling to the BSA.
10
26.Despite the challenge before DOB, construction of the Building began in November or December, 2010.
27.The construction has had, and is having, a significant adverse impact on the plaintiffs whose property abuts the Building Site as a result of the noise and vibrations that emanate from the Site, the delivery of materials, the fumes from trucks, the activities associated with excavation, and other nuisances that have accompanied the work to date. In addition, the value of the properties of the individual plaintiffs and the Co-op has been sharply diminished by the construction impacts, to their special damage.
28.Improper excavation on the Building Site has also compromised an under-ground parking garage on the premises of the Co-op.
29.Many of the construction activities have failed to conform to applicable codes and have led the plaintiffs and others to file complaints (via the City 311 service) with DOB. By the time inspectors have arrived, the contractors have usually ceased or modified their operations so that no violations have been found. However, DOB has twice issued stop work orders closing down construction because of violations on the Site and also issued seven other significan
t violations. These are evidence of the nuisance being created by the current work, which, unless abated, can be expected to continue to the injury of the plaintiffs and the neighborhood and further diminish the value of the plaintiffs’ properties.
30.If the Building is constructed and begins to operate as a house of worship, the plaintiffs and other residents of the area will be subjected to excessive noise,
11
unreasonable traffic congestion, excessive crowding in the streets and on the sidewalks, overburdened parking lanes and insufficient parking spaces, all to an unreasonable degree and in a manner incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood, and the value of their properties will be further diminished, to their special damage. In addition, the excess congestion will prevent emergency vehicles from passing along Voorhies Avenue at critical times.
31.There are alternative non-midblock locations on nearby broad commercial avenues where the Building could be built without intruding to the same extent on the residential neighborhoods of Sheepshead Bay, but the defendants have made no attempt to locate the Building at such a site.
32.The plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the ongoing construction of the Building, and if the Building is completed, they will suffer further irreparable injury, including, but not limited to, a sharp diminution in the quality and character of their residential neighborhood and the value of their properties. .
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 33. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every of the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 31. 34.The construction of the Building violates the Zoning Resolution of the City of
New York, in that it does not include accessory on-site parking spaces, as required
by Section 25-31 of the Zoning Resolution. 35.DOB’s issuance of building permits for the Building was illegal because it failed
12
to enforce the Zoning Resolution and require at least 13 accessory on-site parking
spaces. 36.As a consequence of the failure to provide accessory on-site parking spaces, traffic
congestion will be increased and parking opportunities in the neighborhood will be diminished.    The plaintiffs who live in close proximity to the Building site will be specially damaged as a result, but all the plaintiffs will suffer injury because of the diminution in the quality of the neighborhood.
37.While the plaintiffs have not yet exhausted their administrative remedies (due, among other things, to the slow response of DOB to the GoldmanHarris challenge), the plaintiffs are suffering immediate and irreparable injury, in the manner heretofore described, as the result of the ongoing construction of an illegal building.
38.The plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable damage as they pursue their administrative remedies unless the construction of the Building is enjoined pending the outcome of the administrative process    Consequently, the plaintiffs ask this court to issue a preliminary injunction to avoid further damage pending that outcome.
39. The plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 above.
41.Construction and operation of the Building will result in “significant objectionable
13
influences” in a residential area, in violation of the requirements of Section 22-14 of the Zoning Resolution.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 42. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 40 above. 43.By reason of the adverse impacts described in paragraphs 27 through 29 above, the
construction of the Building is unreasonably interfering with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property and diminishing the value of their properties, to their special damage, and the construction activities constitute an immediate nuisance with respect to the plaintiffs’ property.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 44.Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1
through 42 above. 45.By reason of the adverse impacts described in paragraph 30 above, if the Building
is completed and operates as a house of worship, it and its operations will unreasonably interfere with the plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment, and further diminish the value, of their property, to their special damage, and the Building will constitute a continuing nuisance with respect to the plaintiffs’ property.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judgment and an order pursuant to CPLR Sections 3001 and 6301 for, inter alia, the following relief:
a.    Declaring that construction of the Building violates the New York City Zoning Resolution, including, in particular, those sections of the Resolution that mandate
14
that on-site parking space be provided for the facility; b.    Declaring that construction and operation of the Building would result in
“significant objectionable influences,” in violation of the Zoning Resolution; c.    Declaring that the Building is and will constitute a nuisance with respect to the
plaintiffs; d.    Enjoining the Defendants and their employees and agents from taking any action
to construct, or further construction of, the Building; e.    Granting the Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against any construction pending
the final outcome of this case; and f.    Awarding the Plaintiffs their fees and disbursements in this action; and Granting the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 16, 2011 New York, New York
__________________________________ Albert K. Butzel Attorney for Plaintiffs ALBERT K. BUTZEL LAW OFFICES 249 West 34th St, Suite 400
New York, NY 10001 212-643-0375 Email: [email protected]
15