This firm represents Robert Ehrlich and the Sea Cliff Coffee Company. We write in connection with the lawsuit recently filed by our firm on Mr. Ehrlich's behalf against the Village of Sea Cliff and various officials concerning his application for a permit to operate a small coffee shop in a business district of the village. I am writing to correct the distortions and mischaracterization of that lawsuit which recently appeared in several letters to the editor.

Mr. Ehrlich's lawsuit asserts 16 separate claims against the village, only two of which allege discrimination on the basis of religion on the part of the specifically-named defendants. As stated in detail in the complaint filed in federal court, Mr. Ehrlich was treated in a discriminatory manner in connection with his zoning application and subjected to a selective enforcement of the village's zoning laws in violation of his right to equal protection, in violation of his property rights and in violation of his civil rights.

As just one sample of the discriminatory treatment, the lawsuit alleges that Mr. Ehrlich is one of the few business owners in the village who can provide private on-site parking for his patrons. Other business owners, who have no on-site parking, routinely receive full variances from the village code and its parking requirements. However, when it came to Mr. Ehrlich - who can provide the required parking - the village declared the parking inadequate and imposed numerous onerous conditions on any permit to be issued to him.

The village also contended that since Mr. Ehrlich's property was within 500-feet of a county road, his application required a special referral to the Nassau County Planning Commission and the Sea Cliff Planning Board. However, as alleged in the lawsuit, similarly-situated property owners, who had property within 500-feet of a county road, were not subjected to such a referral and the lengthy delays and/or problems attendant thereto.

The village also contended that, among other things, because Mr. Ehrlich's property was across the street from an historic structure (where a village trustee and his wife resided), Mr. Ehrlich's proposed modest use of the property could have a significant impact on the environment, and directed Mr. Ehrlich to prepare and file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") which is a lengthy report analyzing the environmental impact of the proposed use, including traffic studies and noise testing. In sharp contrast and as alleged in the lawsuit, similarly-situated property owners who proposed far more drastic changes and/or uses than Mr. Ehrlich's small coffee bar and who were also contiguous to historic structures and/or whose proposed work required SEQRA review under the village's own environmental ordinances, were not required to prepare a DEIS or otherwise undergo SEQRA review. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Ehrlich was singled out for such stringent scrutiny, causing an almost two-year delay in the application process at great expense.

I have read the letters to the editor from persons who stated they are Jewish and have never personally experienced anti-Semitism in the village. The fact that they have not personally experienced anti-Semitism in the village is relevant only to their personal experience - it does not mean that other individuals have not experienced such discrimination, nor does it mean that it does not exist. Moreover, the invidious nature of discrimination, whether based on race, religion, disability, or age, is often expressed in subtle ways. Particularly where a person has applied for a permit which is in the village's discretion to approve or deny, discriminatory intent can easily be concealed under the pretest of exercising "discretion." Indeed, Mr. Ehrlich is not the only resident who has alleged discrimination by the village authorities and there is currently at least one federal lawsuit pending against the village which alleges racial discrimination in connection with a zoning application.

Another letter writer incorrectly states that the lawsuit accuses the entire village of being anti-Semitic. The complaint does not state that every resident of Sea Cliff is anti-Semitic; rather, the lawsuit alleges that the specifically-named defendants engaged in discrimination, among other things, in connection with their review of Mr. Ehrlich's zoning application.

Rather than vilify Mr. Ehrlich for asserting his constitutional rights without having all the facts, I suggest it would be more appropriate to allow the court system to address and determine the allegations made against the village and its officials in due course.

Lesley A. Reardon

Rosenberg Calica & Birney LLP