Bates v. Rector, Church-Wardens, & Vestrymen of Trinity Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bates v. Rector, Church-Wardens, & Vestrymen of Trinity Church

140 A.D.3d 503, 32 N.Y.S.3d 490

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 14, 2016

Docket1451 650452/13

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 503 (Bates v. Rector, Church-Wardens, & Vestrymen of Trinity Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bates v. Rector, Church-Wardens, & Vestrymen of Trinity Church, 140 A.D.3d 503, 32 N.Y.S.3d 490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered on or about May 15, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first three causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment in his favor, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that a “majority of votes” is not required to elect wardens or vestryman of defendant church, that defendant is not required to count “no” votes or votes against nominees, and that defendant is not required to provide a ballot that has boxes for “no” votes or votes against nominees, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The detailed election procedures contained in defendant’s ordinances defeat plaintiff’s claims that, pursuant to defendant’s charter, wardens or vestrymen must be elected by a “majority of votes” and that defendant must allow and count “no” votes or votes against nominees.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Web-ber and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo Hagler, J.), entered on or about May 15, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first three causes of action seeking a declaratory judgment in his favor, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that a “majority of votes” is not required to elect wardens or vestryman of defendant church, that defendant is not required to count “no” votes or votes against nominees, and that defendant is not required to provide a ballot that has boxes for “no” votes or votes against nominees, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The detailed election procedures contained in defendant’s ordinances defeat plaintiff’s claims that, pursuant to defendant’s charter, wardens or vestrymen must be elected by a “majority of votes” and that defendant must allow and count “no” votes or votes against nominees.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Web-ber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 503, 32 N.Y.S.3d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-rector-church-wardens-vestrymen-of-trinity-church-nyappdiv-2016.