Committee to Save St. Brigid v. Egan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Committee to Save St. Brigid v. Egan

30 A.D.3d 356, 819 N.Y.S.2d 7

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

DecidedJune 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 356 (Committee to Save St. Brigid v. Egan) 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

Committee to Save St. Brigid v. Egan, 30 A.D.3d 356, 819 N.Y.S.2d 7 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 14, 2006, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CELR 3211, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 6, 2006, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The court properly found that the disposition of the church property and funds at issue were matters within defendant’s ecclesiastical authority and, accordingly, that the relief sought by plaintiffs, i.e., an order mandating that the funds in question be used to restore the subject property for use as a church, would impermissibly involve the court in the governance and administration of a hierarchical church (see Serbian Eastern [357]*357Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v Milivojevich, 426 US 696 [1976]; Kedroff v Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America, 344 US 94 [1952]; cf. Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595 [1979]). Plaintiffs’ promissory estoppel claim would, in any event, be unavailing for lack of a specific promise to keep the subject church building in operation as a church if funds were collected for that purpose (see New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v St. Barnabas Hosp., 10 AD3d 489, 491 [2004]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered February 14, 2006, which, upon the prior grant of defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CELR 3211, dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 6, 2006, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The court properly found that the disposition of the church property and funds at issue were matters within defendant’s ecclesiastical authority and, accordingly, that the relief sought by plaintiffs, i.e., an order mandating that the funds in question be used to restore the subject property for use as a church, would impermissibly involve the court in the governance and administration of a hierarchical church (see Serbian Eastern [357]*357Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v Milivojevich, 426 US 696 [1976]; Kedroff v Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America, 344 US 94 [1952]; cf. Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595 [1979]). Plaintiffs’ promissory estoppel claim would, in any event, be unavailing for lack of a specific promise to keep the subject church building in operation as a church if funds were collected for that purpose (see New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v St. Barnabas Hosp., 10 AD3d 489, 491 [2004]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 356, 819 N.Y.S.2d 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/committee-to-save-st-brigid-v-egan-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack