Rende and Esposito Consultants, Inc. v. St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church

• Decision Date: 22 June 1987
• Citation: 131 A.D.2d 740,516 N.Y.S.2d 959
• Parties: RENDE AND ESPOSITO CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Appellants, Park Slope Development Corp., Intervenor-Appellant, v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, etc., et al., Respondents, et al., Additional Defendants on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Cross-Claim.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 959

516 N.Y.S.2d 959

131 A.D.2d 740

RENDE AND ESPOSITO CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Appellants Park Slope Development Corp., Intervenor-Appellant, v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, etc., et al Respondents, et al., Additional Defendants on Plaintiff-Intervenor's Cross-Claim.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

June 22, 1987.

Herrick, Feinstein, New York City (Stephen M. Rathkopf and Anthony J. Sylvester, of counsel), for appellants.

Graubard Moskovitz Dannett Horowitz & Mollen, New York City (Scott E. Mollen, Steven Mallis and Gary S. Mayerson, of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.

Hurley, Kearney & Lane, Brooklyn (Richard J. Cea and Joseph P. Mattera, of counsel), for respondents St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church, etc., Father Ernest H. Fiorillo, Bishop Francis J. Mugavero and Monsignor James P. King.

Burns, Kennedy, Schilling & O'Shea, New York City (William A. Cahill, Jr., of counsel), for respondents Helen Kavanagh and Rafa Joa.

Before EIBER, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property owned by the defendant St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church (hereinafter St. Augustine's), (1) the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated March 19, 1987, as granted the respective motions of the respondents St. Augustine's, Father Ernest H. Fiorillo, Bishop Francis J. Mugavero and Monsignor James P. King, and the respondents Helen Kavanagh and Rafa Joa for summary judgment dismissing their complaint, and cancelled their notice of pendency filed against the subject property; and (2) the plaintiff-intervenor separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as granted the respective motions of the respondents St. Augustine's, Father Ernest H. Fiorillo, Bishop Francis J. Mugavero and Monsignor James P. King, and the respondents Helen Kavanagh and Rafa Joa for summary judgment dismissing its complaint, cancelled its notice of pendency filed against the subject property, and denied its motion for leave to amend its complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motions for summary judgment are denied, and the plaintiff-intervenor's motion for leave to serve an amended complaint is granted.

The record reveals that on June 14, 1983, the plaintiff Rende and Esposito Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter Rende and Esposito) and St. Augustine's allegedly entered into a contract whereby St. Augustine's, a religious corporation, agreed to sell a parcel of improved real property situated in Kings County to Rende and Esposito for a purchase price of $850,000. The contract was signed by the defendant Father Ernest H. Fiorillo, the pastor and a trustee of St. Augustine's, in his capacity as secretary of the religious corporation. The agreement was expressly made subject to, among other things, "[a]pproval of [the] Supreme Court pursuant to Section 12 of [the] Religious Corporations Law, which said approval shall be obtained by Seller at its own cost and expense". It further provided that Rende and Esposito could not assign the contract without the approval of St. Augustine's, said approval not to be unreasonably withheld, and gave St. Augustine's the right to adjourn the closing date for a period of one year if various municipal approvals for the conversion of the property to residential use could not be obtained by December 31, 1983.

Thereafter, Rende and Esposito became engaged in the process of attempting to secure the aforementioned approvals and also negotiated an assignment of the contract with the plaintiff-intervenor Park Slope Development Corporation (hereinafter Park Slope). Pursuant to that assignment, Park Slope agreed to pay a total of $3,000,000, and the agreement was conditioned upon the approval of the assignment by St. Augustine's.

On July 1, 1985, a meeting was held by the board of trustees of St. Augustine's on the issue of whether to approve the sale of the subject property to Rende and Esposito. The trustees present at the meeting unanimously voted to disapprove the sale, to retain the subject property, and to authorize Father Fiorillo to explore the possibility of leasing the buildings situated thereon. Rende and Esposito thereafter commenced the instant action seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the contract of sale and damages for the alleged breach of the contract. Park Slope intervened in the action and served a complaint asserting similar claims against the defendants and various cross claims against the plaintiffs. After the completion of discovery, Park Slope moved for leave to serve an amended complaint, and the clerical respondents (St. Augustine's, Bishop Francis J. Mugavero, Monsignor James P. King and Father Fiorillo) and the lay respondents (Helen Kavanagh and Rafa Joa) separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the aforementioned motions for summary judgment and denied Park Slope's motion for leave to amend its complaint. In its accompanying decision, the court reasoned that the contract of sale was unenforceable due to the lack of approval by St. Augustine's board of trustees and that the various claims by Rende and Esposito and Park Slope could not be entertained because the resolution to disapprove the sale involved matters of ecclesiastical judgment by the church hierarchy over which the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We now reverse.

Initially, we note that the court erred in concluding that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claims before it. While it is clear that the judiciary may not interfere in disputes concerning matters of religious doctrine and practice (see, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151, reh. denied 429 U.S. 873, 97 S.Ct. 191, 50 L.Ed.2d 155; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120), the courts remain free to resolve controversies involving religious groups or organizations where such matters are not implicated and where the dispute can be settled by the application of neutral principles of law (see, Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775; Morris v. Scribner, 69 N.Y.2d 418, 515 N.Y.S.2d 424, 508 N.E.2d 136; see also, Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108, 459 N.Y.S.2d 572, 446 N.E.2d 136 cert. denied 464 U.S. 817, 104 S.Ct. 76, 78 L.Ed.2d 88). The present case concerns a dispute over the title to real property, the resolution of which may be...