After Oyster Bay denied a mosque's expansion, the legal bills piled up. Taxpayers are on the hook for millions.

The Town of Oyster Bay braced for a lengthy taxpayer-funded legal fight after it denied a Bethpage mosque's expansion. 

The town hired a lead law firm, with attorneys billing up to $390 an hour. A second firm, hired months later, on the eve of a federal trial, charged $1,200 hourly rates. The town paid a third firm more than $26,000 for "federal court advice," invoices show.

A trial never happened. The town settled in October and agreed to a smaller expansion for the Masjid Al-Baqi mosque. The settlement, according to a town memo, prevented "additional costly and time-consuming litigation."

The denial and subsequent lawsuit had come at a significant cost — nearly $7 million in legal fees for the two sides.

The Town of Oyster Bay has spent $1.9 million on outside lawyers, according to invoices obtained by Newsday.

In December, an arbitrator required the town to pay more than $5 million in attorneys' fees racked up by the mosque's owner, Muslims on Long Island. The town's insurance carrier paid about half the expense.

The first firm hired in the case, Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross LLP, billed the town nearly $600,000. Another firm, Greenberg Traurig LLP, charged more than $26,000 for legal advice, records show. Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP, of Garden City, billed the town nearly $1.3 million for legal work across nine weeks, records obtained by Newsday show. 

In December, an arbitrator ruled the Oyster Bay Town owed more than $5 million in legal fees to Muslims on Long Island.

The millions spent on law firms underscores Oyster Bay's fight to block the mosque's expansion.  

Assemb. Chuck Lavine (D-Glen Cove) said the spending is a “cynical and pathetic” use of taxpayer funds.

“They love to play with house money,” Lavine said in an interview. “And, unfortunately, for the hardworking taxpayers of Oyster Bay — they are the ones who provide the house money.”

Oyster Bay officials have said the initial plan to roughly triple the footprint of the house of worship, to more than 16,000 square feet, would have created traffic and safety problems. The new plan limits the expansion to 9,950 square feet at ground level or higher. 

Town officials said the smaller plan represents a win for the community. 

Brian Nevin, a town spokesman, said Oyster Bay fully budgeted for the cost in its general fund and has a responsibility to defend town zoning laws. The town's 2026 budget was $354.3 million, which included a tax levy hike of more than 3.9%, the first such increase since 2017, Newsday has reported.  

“These legal expenses were carefully managed within the Town’s existing financial framework, with insurance covering a substantial portion of the arbitration costs,” Nevin said in a statement. “By upholding our zoning rights, we are safeguarding our neighborhoods and ensuring responsible development for the long-term benefit of all residents.”

Edward Ross, a partner with Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross LLP, said the town's case "was always about local zoning rights and protecting the community against over-intensification, safety and traffic mitigation." The firm's legal strategy, he said in an email, "led to the successful outcome." 

Greenberg Traurig declined to comment. Moritt Hock & Hamroff did not respond to a request for comment.

A looming trial 

Tensions between the town and mosque have cooled since the settlement last fall. In February, Oyster Bay officials approved the site plan for the expansion. The group that owns the mosque said it plans to hire a contractor, which would start building in the fall.

The case centered on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. The federal statute requires municipalities treat secular and nonsecular facilities equally while applying zoning and landmarking laws.

For years, the mosque's owners sought to expand by razing two single-story structures and building a larger one on site. 

The town passed a law in 2022 — while MOLI’s expansion was under review — changing the parking space requirement for houses of worship and other religious-based facilities.

The shift nearly doubled parking space requirements for the mosque. Under the new calculation, the town based parking off total occupancy rather than the number of seats in the facility or square footage.

Outside lawyers are usually brought in to defend highly complex and specialized cases, such as the mosque's federal lawsuit, experts told Newsday. Town attorneys generally lack the staff and resources to manage lengthy litigation.

“Even if they have the experience, they don’t have the bandwidth to really do big trials,” Anthony Basile, a professor of accounting and taxation at Hofstra University, said in a phone interview.

“This is a serious and fairly extraordinary set of allegations that have been brought against the town,” said John Quinn, an assistant professor at Touro University's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law School. “In-house counsel offices I just don’t think are built for this.”

Had the case gone to trial, the town’s expenses could have doubled or tripled, Quinn said.

The town agreed to a settlement last August. But the town backed out more than a week later, citing in a statement the "high accident rates" at the nearby intersection of Central and Stewart avenues, adding  more than 4,775 red light violations are issued at the location annually. 

'Skill set' sought

The first law firm hired, Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross, charged $390 an hour for work by partners and $290 per hour for associates. The firm's bill totaled $582,982, records show. 

Greenberg Traurig billed $26,466.50 and provided "federal court advice," invoices show. That included 28½ hours between Aug. 22 and 29, and a half hour on Oct. 15.

The town did not subject the firms to a competitive bidding process, which are required by state law for any purchase over $20,000 and public works projects over $35,000. The town hired Rosenberg Calica Birney Liebman & Ross on an "emergency basis."

Moritt Hock & Hamroff was retained because of its "unique skill set," including its prior work with the first firm, according to a town memo. The town also waived its purchasing policy when it approved retroactive payments to Greenburg Traurig in January. The payments were retroactive to August, and a town memo cited the "time sensitive nature of the proceedings."

In a Sept. 29 memo from the town attorney's office, Oyster Bay laid out its rationale for hiring Moritt Hock & Hamroff. Town attorneys cited "the exigencies of time, (since the trial is due to commence within four weeks), the complexity of the issues involved," as well as the lawyers' "skill set," the memo stated.

The town said the firm could assist in the upcoming trial and a potential appeal.

Experts said some municipalities fail to appropriately weigh the benefits of prolonged court cases. 

Cam Macdonald, legal director of the Albany-based Government Justice Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm, said it can be an issue when governments "think they have unlimited resources to engage in these lawsuits in a way that is probably irrational."