 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEMBERS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CHURCH DISPUTE SUPREME COURT APPELLATE DIVISION NY2D CONGREGATION APPEALS DISMISSING OCCUPANCY RESOLVE UNITED STATES COMPLAINT STIPULATION PAYMENTS PREMISES HOLDING LAW PARK SLOPE JEWISH CONTROL REVERSE MOTION PARTIES FIRST AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CROSS FIRST PRESBYT |
PARK SLOPE JEWISH CENTER, APPELLANT, v. CONGREGATION B'NAI JACOB, RESPONDENT.
90 N.Y.2d 517, 686 N.E.2d 1330, 664 N.Y.S.2d 236 (1997).
October 16, 1997
2 No. 157
(97 NY Int. 0148)
Decided October 16, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Arnold Davis, for appellant.
Anthony Motta, for respondent.
WESLEY, J.:
Plaintiff Park Slope Jewish Center appeals from the dismissal of its
complaint seeking compensation for use and occupancy of its premises
by defendant Congregation B'nai Jacob and ejectment of defendant from
the premises. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that it
presents a controversy over religious doctrine that the courts cannot
resolve, and the Appellate Division affirmed. We disagree and reverse.
This dispute has had a vigorous and litigious life since its genesis
in May 1983. The dispute began when a majorityof the members of
plaintiff's congregation voted to grant women equal rights of worship.
The members of the congregation who could not abide by that decision
formed their own congregation, which has since been incorporated as
defendant.
In the same year that the vote took place, plaintiff commenced an
action sounding in trespass against defendant's members. In May 1984,
the action was resolved by a stipulation in Supreme Court. Under the
terms of the stipulation, plaintiff retained ownership of the
premises; plaintiff would conduct its services in the main sanctuary,
while defendant would have the right to use the lower sanctuary for
its services; defendant would pay plaintiff $460 per month for use and
occupancy of the lower sanctuary; defendant's members could become
members of plaintiff on the same terms as plaintiff's members, but
plaintiff had the right to determine its membership criteria without
limitation; any membership dues paid by defendant's members to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
