OPINION & ORDER Defendants Highland Lake Homeowners Association, Arthur Edwards, Inc., Archway Property Management, Inc., Carmine Mastrogiacomo, Christopher Perino, Alex Rubanovich, Nancy Diaz, and Ray Torres (collectively, “Defendants”) bring this motion to vacate the Stipulation and Order entered on September 5, 2018 (the “So-Ordered Stipulation”) pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiffs used a falsified affirmation to induce Defendants’ to enter the So-Ordered Stipulation. (ECF No. 90.) Plaintiffs Mendel Stern, Aharon Ostreicher, Yochonon Markowitz, Abraham Kohn, Isaac Schwimmer, Esther Schwimmer, Joel Sabel, Yoel Fried, Fraida M. Fried, Melech Krauss, Israel Ostreicher and their families (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) concede that they used a falsified affirmation but nonetheless oppose the motion. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion pursuant to its inherent equitable powers and orders that the So-Ordered Stipulation be vacated. BACKGROUND The instant dispute arises from Plaintiffs’ use of an affirmation signed by a person other than the affirmant, without the affirmant’s knowledge, in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction in 2018. The Initiation of Plaintiffs’ Claims and Application for Preliminary Injunction This matter was initiated on June 24, 2018, when Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting various state and federal claims against Defendants for their alleged use of anti-Hasidic policies in the Highland Lake gated community within the Woodbury, New York (“Highland Lake”). (See Complaint (ECF No. 2).) After filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order and, subsequently, a conference on this application was held before Judge Katherine Polk Failla on August 14, 2018. (ECF No. 34.) During the August 14, 2018 Conference, the parties reached an interim agreement to temporarily resolve the issue before it could be heard before this Court. (Id.) On August 22, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction “enjoining defendants, their successors in office, agents, employees and assigns from utilizing an entrance/exit gate for Highland Lake Estates which gate restricts access to plaintiffs’ homes on account of their collective refusal to cooperate with the erection of said gate which is solely intended to restrict access to the property by persons associated with and related to plaintiffs and their religious community.” (ECF No. 32.) Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of TRO” (referred to herein as “Pls’ PI Mem.”) (ECF No. 37) in which Plaintiffs argued that “defendants have violated both federal and state statutes intended to insure their civil rights” by, among other things, using “the gate to restrict Hasidic access” and otherwise engaging in “a pattern of overt discrimination against plaintiffs and those similarly situated.” (Pls’ PI Mem. at 3.) The vast majority of the memorandum goes no further than summarizing the unverified allegations of the Complaint without citing any other source or identifying where in the Complaint these allegations were raised. (See Pls’ PI Mem at 1-12.) Besides summarizing the Complaint, the only evidence cited in the memorandum is an affirmation purportedly signed by one of the plaintiffs, Isaac Schwimmer. (See Pls’ PI Mem. at 13-14) (citing the Affirmation of Isaac Schwimmer (“Schwimmer Aff.”) (ECF No. 38).) To this end, the Schwimmer Affirmation is the sole evidence submitted for the position that “there has been practically no crime in the [Highland Lake Estates] and [Defendant Highland Lake Estates Home Owners Association] intends to erect the security gates to deter entry into the community of Hasidic Jews and as a means of discouraging their interest in occupancy in the community.” (Pls’ PI Mem. at 13 (citing Schwimmer Aff.).) Likewise, the Schwimmer Affirmation is the sole form of evidence cited for the position that the use of the gates by Defendants “have substantially restricted vehicles entering the [Highland Lake Estates], disallowing school buses from picking up children near their homes, thereby burdening the religious practice of Hasidic families, including but not limited to each plaintiff, and prohibiting delivery vehicles and car services, also knowingly imposing a disproportionate burden upon Hasidic families, again, including, but not limited to each plaintiff.” (Pls’ PI Mem. at 13 (citing Schwimmer Aff.).) The Schwimmer Affirmation is also the sole evidence cited for the positions that Hasidic women do not drive automobiles and instead must rely upon car services and delivery services for the provision of bare necessities which is complicated by the erection of the gate by Defendants. (See Pls’ PI Mem. at 13 (citing Schwimmer Aff.).) Plaintiffs even contend in their memorandum that “[t]he annexed Schwimmer Affidavit [sic] further explains the basis for this application: Hasidic school children are now being dropped off on Ridge Road, a busy county thoroughfare because the bus company which provides them transportation to school during the summer cannot and will not pass through the gate.” (Pls’ PI Mem. at 14.) In sum, the very core of Plaintiffs’ theory, and the factual evidence supporting their motion for preliminary injunction, rely heavily and exclusively upon the Schwimmer Affirmation. In relevant part, the Schwimmer Affirmation avers as follows: (I) Isaac Schwimmer is the affirmant and he resides in the Highland Lake Estates (Schwimmer Aff. 1), (II) Isaac Schwimmer initially moved to the development in 2016 and at that time there was no gate, nor was there any gate for over twenty years since Highland Lake Estates was first established (Schwimmer Aff. 2); (III) since 2016, there has been a noticeable increase in Hasidic residents within Highland Lake Estates and this has engendered significant hostility including through the amendment of by-laws designed to negatively impact the ability of Hasidic residents to conduct business (Schwimmer Aff. 3); (IV) the Defendants sought to erect a gate in order to make Highland Lake Estates inhospitable to Hasidic residents and used crime prevention as a pretext for this ploy despite the lack of any crime in the community (Schwimmer Aff. 4); (V) the use of the gate is particularly harmful to Hasidic residents because Hasidic women require taxicabs and vendors for transportation and household goods, respectively (Schwimmer Aff. 5); (VI) the use of the gates also prevents the Hasidic residents from sending their children to school because the bus companies cannot gain entrance past the gates and the children must instead be picked up and dropped off at a busy county roadway which the parents cannot reasonably access because they are “with infants” (Schwimmer Aff.
