N.Y. State Supreme Court Hearing Slated on Suit to Have an Eruv Removed from a Queens Community

The State Supreme Court will hold a hearing early next month on a suit filed to have a newly constructed eruv removed from the residential seaside communities of Belle Harbor and Neponsit, on the western end of the Rockaway peninsula in Queens.

The suit was brought by a local resident, Joseph Smith, who charges that the eruv, a religious device consisting of a physical boundary enclosing an area, violates the constitutional requirement of church-state separation.

Smith contends that the city improperly gave permission for construction of the eruv because it placed the “prestige and power of the government in the service of a particular faith” and that the eruv would result “in the creation and establishment of the area as a designated religious area.”

ANIMOSITY TOWARD THE ORTHODOX COMMUNITY

But what began as an attempt by four Orthodox area synagogues to seek what is described as an “accommodation” for their religious membership — estimated to total 450 families — has snowballed, creating animosity toward the Orthodox community and divisiveness among many long-time residents.

An eruv under Jewish law is a device which may be a natural boundary, monument or wires strung across utility polls that allows for an observant Jew to carry objects from their residence into a common street or courtyard which they would otherwise be banned from using for that purpose on the Sabbath.

In New York City, there are as many as 30 communities that have constructed eruvs and there are hundreds that have done so similarly in communities across the country. On the eastern end of the Rockaway peninsula and to the north of the peninsula, in Brooklyn, communities have constructed eruvs.

But unlike other neighborhoods, the Belle Harbor and Neponsit eruv includes a minor variation, the raising of the seawall to a height of at least 40 inches, as required by Jewish law to meet the requirements for an eruv. Many points on the seawall are already high enough, but others have been raised in recent weeks, some by as much as 10 to 12 inches.

VANDALISM AGAINST THE ERUV

There have already been reports of vandalism against the eruv, whose construction is nearly completed. A moratorium on construction has been agreed to by both sides to the conflict.

At one point, vandals toppled a newly constructed section of the wall before the cement was able to solidify. The string atop utility polls along the northern end of the peninsula near Jacob Riis Park has been torn down. Police patrols have been increased in the area.

Area residents complain of not being informed of the community board’s decision last year to grant approval to the eruv committee for construction. Methods used by the eruv committee to gain approval for eruv construction has come under criticism by some area residents, although these criticisms have been dismissed as unfounded. However, both sides acknowledge that the eruv committee obtained all the necessary permits and documents prior to construction.

Regarding the court challenge, Dennis Rapps, attorney for the eruv committee that was named as defendant in the suit, contends that the issue is not Church-state separation, but whether it is permissable for the state to enable private individuals to do things on public property to facilitate their religious practice.

“We think that accommodating religious practices does not involve the establishment of religion,” said Rapps, executive director of the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs. He added that the raising of the seawall is “not identifiable” as a religious symbol.

Opponents, nonetheless, fear that construction of an eruv would change the character of the neighborhood, bringing more Orthodox families to the area. They cite the village of Lawrence in Nassau County as an example, where there has been a noticeable increase of Orthodox Jews in recent years following the emplacement of an eruv.

Rabbi Jacob Reiner of the Belle Harbor Jewish Center and honorary chairman of the eruv committee said he found it “really incomprehensible” what was causing such strong opposition to the eruv. According to Reiner, the purpose of the eruv is not to attract people to the neighborhood, “but to accommodate people to observe Sabbath with maximum comfort.”

Smith contends in his suit, scheduled to be heard April 2 in Queens County Supreme Court, that he would be forced to accept “this religious device” as a condition of his right to use public property. He asserts that the eruv has “a religious aura and metaphysical impact.”