Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 20 November 2000
• Citation: 719 N.Y.S.2d 297
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) EBENEZER MAR THOMA CHURCH, NEW YORK, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas C. ALEXANDER, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant, 1999-02790 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 297

719 N.Y.S.2d 297 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

EBENEZER MAR THOMA CHURCH, NEW YORK, et al., Appellants, v. Thomas C. ALEXANDER, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant,

1999-02790

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - November 20, 2000

January 22, 2001

Greenspan & Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y. (Leon J. Greenspan and Michael E. Greenspan of counsel), for Appellants.

Mann & Mann, Port Chester, N.Y. (Carolyn H. Mann of counsel), for Respondents.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, HOWARD MILLER and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin the individual defendants from performing certain church-related activities, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), dated June 4, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, enjoined the individual plaintiffs from using or operating under the names Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church and Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church, New York, and dismissed the complaint.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a decision rendered by a court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that its conclusions could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499; Bucci v Bucci, 231 A.D.2d 665; Richard's Home Ctr. & Lbr. v Kraft, 199 A.D.2d 254; Universal Leasing Servs. v Flushing Hae Kwan Rest., 169 A.D.2d 829, 830).

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court's finding that the Mar Thoma Church, which is the parent church of the Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church, New York, is hierarchical in nature. Accordingly, the issues of whether the individual plaintiffs are members in good standing within the church and who, among the parties, represents the true Ebenezer Mar Thoma Church, both of which have been decided in the respondents' favor by the church's highest authorities, are not reviewable by a secular court of law (see, Serbian Easter Orthodox Diocese, 426 U.S. 696, 724- 725; Watson v Jones, 80 U.S. 679; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in the United States of America, 62 N.Y.2d 110, 119, cert denied 469 U.S. 1037; Matter of Kissel v Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Holy Trinity Church of Yonkers, 103 A.D.2d 830).

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the...