Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. and Canada, Inc.
Decision Date | 18 November 2003 |
Docket Number | 1329-1329A. |
Citation | 2003 NY Slip Op 18374,767 N.Y.S.2d 78,1 A.D.3d 180 |
Parties | HELEN C. SIEGER, Respondent-Appellant, v. THE UNION OF ORTHODOX RABBIS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
At issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff wife's claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and aiding and abetting the latter tort in the context of a religious divorce proceeding are justiciable or otherwise sufficient to survive the motions of the defendant rabbis and rabbinical courts for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
Insofar as plaintiff's claims are predicated upon challenges to the rabbinical tribunal's procedures and issuance of a "heter," or permission for the husband to remarry, instead of a "get," or religious divorce, review is proscribed by the First Amendment entanglement doctrine (see Presbyterian Church in U.S. v Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyt. Church, 393 US 440, 447 [1969]) as an infringement upon a religious community's "independence from secular control or manipulation" (Kedroff v St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 US 94, 116 [1952]). Indeed: (Watson v Jones, 13 Wall [80 US] 679, 728-729 [1871]). The United States Supreme Court's subsequent statement that there might be "marginal civil court review" of an ecclesiastical tribunal's determination that is the direct result of fraud or collusion for secular purposes was dictum (see Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for U.S. of Am. & Canada v Milivojevich, 426 US 696, 713 [1976]). In any event, plaintiff's allegation that the heter was fraudulently procured through bribery was unsubstantiated and speculative, and conclusively refuted by defendants' documentary evidence tendered in support of their renewal motion.
The allegedly defamatory statements which would require an examination of religious doctrine or practice, or an inquiry into the methodology of how the rabbinical tribunal arrived at its conclusions concerning questions of religious doctrine, such as whether plaintiff failed to respond to the summons of the rabbinical tribunal, are not actionable by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (see Mandel v Silber, 304 AD2d 538 [2003]; Klagsbrun v Va'ad Harabonim of Greater Monsey, 53 F Supp 2d 732 [1999], affd 263 F3d 158 [3d Cir 2001]). To the extent plaintiff has alleged defamatory statements which can be evaluated solely by the application of neutral principles of law and do not implicate matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laguerre v. Maurice
...pornography on the church's computer, may be evaluated without reference to religious principles (see Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 A.D.3d 180, 182, 767 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; Berger v. Temple Beth–El of Great Neck, 303 A.D.2d 346, 348, 756 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). The defendants point ......
-
Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Ass'n
...into religious doctrine or practice (id. at 286–287, 849 N.Y.S.2d 463, 879 N.E.2d 1282 ; see Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 A.D.3d 180, 182, 767 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept.2003] ). Here, membership in the CBA requires being of the Buddhist faith and admission as a disciple.......
-
Katz v. Katz
...Slope Jewish Ctr. v. Congregation B'nai Jacob, 90 N.Y.2d 517 [1997] ). The First Department in Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. and Canada, (1 AD3d 180, 767 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2003] ), held that a lawsuit that would require an examination of religious doctrine or practice was not action......
-
Drake v. Moulton Mem'l Baptist Church of Newburgh
...inquiry into religious doctrine or practice ( id. at 286–287, 849 N.Y.S.2d 463, 879 N.E.2d 1282; see Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 A.D.3d 180, 182, 767 N.Y.S.2d 78; Mandel v. Silber, 304 A.D.2d 538, 756 N.Y.S.2d 887; Jackson v. Presbytery of Susquehanna Val., 265 A.D.......