Hafif v. Rabbinical Council of Syrian & Near Eastern Jewish Communities in America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hafif v. Rabbinical Council of Syrian & Near Eastern Jewish Communities in America

140 A.D.3d 1017, 34 N.Y.S.3d 160

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

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket2014-00208

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1017 (Hafif v. Rabbinical Council of Syrian & Near Eastern Jewish Communities in America) 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

Hafif v. Rabbinical Council of Syrian & Near Eastern Jewish Communities in America, 140 A.D.3d 1017, 34 N.Y.S.3d 160 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated August 12, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the defendants correctly contend, the Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s claims cannot be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to religious principles (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007]; Rodzianko v Parish of the Russian Orthodox Holy Virgin Protection Church, Inc., 117 AD3d 706 [2014]). In particular, the courts would be involved in determining the proper interpretation and understanding of the Hebrew word “mizuyaf,” the authenticity requirements for documents being submitted on an application to a Jewish religious tribunal for permission to remarry, and the validity of the documents submitted in the context of a Jewish religious divorce dispute. Thus, the court would be impermissibly entangled in the application of religious customs, laws and procedures (see Drake v Moulton Mem. Baptist Church of Newburgh, 93 AD3d 685 [2012]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ *1018 remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated August 12, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the defendants correctly contend, the Supreme Court properly directed the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s claims cannot be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to religious principles (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007]; Rodzianko v Parish of the Russian Orthodox Holy Virgin Protection Church, Inc., 117 AD3d 706 [2014]). In particular, the courts would be involved in determining the proper interpretation and understanding of the Hebrew word “mizuyaf,” the authenticity requirements for documents being submitted on an application to a Jewish religious tribunal for permission to remarry, and the validity of the documents submitted in the context of a Jewish religious divorce dispute. Thus, the court would be impermissibly entangled in the application of religious customs, laws and procedures (see Drake v Moulton Mem. Baptist Church of Newburgh, 93 AD3d 685 [2012]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ *1018 remaining contentions.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1017, 34 N.Y.S.3d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hafif-v-rabbinical-council-of-syrian-near-eastern-jewish-communities-in-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack