Congregation Nachlas Jacob Anshe Sfard of Jackson Heights v. Schwarz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Congregation Nachlas Jacob Anshe Sfard of Jackson Heights v. Schwarz

2017 NY Slip Op 5707, 152 A.D.3d 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 913

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

DecidedJuly 14, 2017

Docket2015-03047

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5707 (Congregation Nachlas Jacob Anshe Sfard of Jackson Heights v. Schwarz) 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

Congregation Nachlas Jacob Anshe Sfard of Jackson Heights v. Schwarz, 2017 NY Slip Op 5707, 152 A.D.3d 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated February 23, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action to quiet title to the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action to quiet title to the subject property. Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1) provides that in order to sell any of its real property, a religious corporation must apply for, and obtain, leave of court pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 (see Levovitz v Yeshiva Beth Henoch, 120 AD2d 289, 295 [1986]). “The purpose of this requirement is to protect the members of the religious corporation, the real parties in interest, from loss through unwise bargains and from perversion of the use of the property” (Church of God of Prospect Plaza v Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, of Brooklyn, 76 AD2d 712, 716 [1980], affd 54 NY2d 742 [1981]). Here, the plaintiff, a religious corporation subject to the requirements of Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1), established, prima facie, that its conveyance of the subject property to the defendants was invalid because it was made without leave of court (see Religious Corporations Law § 12 [1]; Wiggs v Williams, 36 AD3d 570, 571 [2007]; Matter of Agudist Council of Greater N.Y. v Imperial Sales Co., 158 AD2d 683 [1990]). In opposition, the defendant Simon Schwarz (hereinafter the defendant) failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), dated February 23, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cause of action to quiet title to the subject property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its cause of action to quiet title to the subject property. Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1) provides that in order to sell any of its real property, a religious corporation must apply for, and obtain, leave of court pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 (see Levovitz v Yeshiva Beth Henoch, 120 AD2d 289, 295 [1986]). “The purpose of this requirement is to protect the members of the religious corporation, the real parties in interest, from loss through unwise bargains and from perversion of the use of the property” (Church of God of Prospect Plaza v Fourth Church of Christ, Scientist, of Brooklyn, 76 AD2d 712, 716 [1980], affd 54 NY2d 742 [1981]). Here, the plaintiff, a religious corporation subject to the requirements of Religious Corporations Law § 12 (1), established, prima facie, that its conveyance of the subject property to the defendants was invalid because it was made without leave of court (see Religious Corporations Law § 12 [1]; Wiggs v Williams, 36 AD3d 570, 571 [2007]; Matter of Agudist Council of Greater N.Y. v Imperial Sales Co., 158 AD2d 683 [1990]). In opposition, the defendant Simon Schwarz (hereinafter the defendant) failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5707, 152 A.D.3d 647, 55 N.Y.S.3d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/congregation-nachlas-jacob-anshe-sfard-of-jackson-heights-v-schwarz-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack