Kelley v. Garuda
Decision Date | 09 January 2007 |
Docket Number | 2005-00271.,2005-00273. |
Citation | 827 N.Y.S.2d 293,36 A.D.3d 593,2007 NY Slip Op 00118 |
Parties | EDWARD KELLEY, Also Known as ADARSI DAS, et al., Appellants, v. ARUNA GARUDA, Also Known as ARUNA DEVI DAS, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.
This case involves a property dispute between two factions affiliated with the Long Island Hare Krishna Temple located in Freeport (hereinafter the Temple). The individual parties are members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (hereinafter ISKCON), a New York religious corporation incorporated in 1966. The property at issue is located at 197 South Ocean Avenue in Freeport and was acquired by ISKCON in 1980.
The Supreme Court granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action, alleging trespass and usurpation of corporate authority, respectively, finding that, in both causes of action, the plaintiffs had "intertwined the issue[s]" with allegations of heretical practices on the part of the defendants. The court concluded that the causes of action were not justiciable, as any action on them would entail violating the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court erred in its conclusion and in dismissing the two causes of action.
The United States Constitution prohibits the courts from resolving "controversies over religious doctrine and practice" (Presbyterian Church in U.S. v Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 US 440, 449 [1969]; see Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v Congregation B'nai Jacob, 90 NY2d 517, 521 [1997]; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 116 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). "Such rulings violate the First Amendment because they simultaneously establish one religious belief as correct for the organization while interfering with the free exercise of the opposing faction's beliefs" (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., supra at 116). Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that "there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without `establishing' churches to which property is awarded" (Presbyterian Church v Hull Church, supra at 449; see Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595, 602-603 [1979]; cf. Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 31 AD3d 541 [2006]).
Here, both sides attempted to engage the court in a dispute over church doctrine and practice. However, in evaluating a motion under CPLR 3211, where, as here, evidentiary material has been considered by the court, "the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Congregation Lubavitch, Inc.
...Church of Schnectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 116, 476 N.Y.S.2d 86, 464 N.E.2d 454; Kelley v. Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 827 N.Y.S.2d 293; Malankara Archdiocese of Syrian Orthodox Church in N. Am. v. Thomas, 33 AD3d 887, 888, 824 N.Y.S.2d 101)". Further, contrary to ......
-
Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the U.S. v. Congregation Lubavitch, Inc.
...Church of Schnectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 N.Y.2d 110, 116, 476 N.Y.S.2d 86, 464 N.E.2d 454 ; Kelley v. Garuda, 36 AD3d 593, 827 N.Y.S.2d 293 ; Malankara Archdiocese of Syrian Orthodox Church in N. Am. v. Thomas, 33 AD3d 887, 888, 824 N.Y.S.2d 101 )". Further, contrar......
-
Krystal G. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
...“neutral principles of law ... can be applied without establishing' ” church doctrine to resolve the dispute ( Kelley v. Garuda, 36 A.D.3d 593, 595, 827 N.Y.S.2d 293 [2007] quoting Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.......
-
Kafarskiy v. Zubli Brothers, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 32492(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/21/2008), 0011914/2008.
...the instant matter. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo of an action pending trial. See, Kelley v. Garuda, 36 A.D.3d 593 (2nd 2007). As such, the granting of a preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy which is to be used sparingly, and such remedy will no......