In re Kaminsky

251 A.D. 132, 295 N.Y.S. 989, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6878
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 12, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 251 A.D. 132 (In re Kaminsky) 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
In re Kaminsky, 251 A.D. 132, 295 N.Y.S. 989, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6878 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

Edgcomb, J.

This proceeding is brought pursuant to the provisions of section 25 of the General Corporation Law, to determine which of two rival boards of trustees of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church of Syracuse, if either, has been legally elected.

The record is voluminous, and covers many different transactions, but our task will be made comparatively easy if we keep constantly in mind the sole problem which we are called upon to solve, and refrain from an attempt to settle other matters of dispute which have arisen between the warring factions of the church.

In order to properly determine the issue it will, however, be helpful, if not necessary, to briefly review the history of this particular church, and its relation to the parent body.

The Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church belongs to that branch of Catholic Christians which follows the teachings, doctrines, practices, usages and rites of the Greek Catholic Church in Galicia. It is one of the Uníate churches which has a separate organization, but which is in full communion with the Holy See, and which acknowledges the spiritual supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. It retains all the privileges, immunities and practices of the ancient Eastern or Byzantine rite, not inconsistent with the fundamental Christian faith of the Western or Latin Church. It uses the Byzantine liturgy. The bishops are appointed by the Pope, and the priests of the various churches are designated by the bishops. The services are conducted in the Slavonic rather than the Latin language.

[134]*134The general scheme of government of each individual church of the denomination is similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church. The business of the individual church is vested in a board of trustees consisting of the bishop, the chancellor of the diocese, and the priest of the particular congregation, all of whom are ex officio members of the board, and two lay members selected by said officials, or by a majority of them. A close unity is thus preserved between the ecclesiastical and temporal affairs of the church. Prior to 1917, when article 5-A was added to the Religious Corporations Law, there was no provision in this State for the incorporation of a Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church under such a plan. If it was desired to incorporate such an organized body, it was necessary to resort to the provisions of the act applicable to Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, or to that portion of the statute which now constitutes article 10, and which puts the temporal affairs of the organization in the hands of a board of lay trustees elected by the members of the church.

The church in question was incorporated in 1900 under the name of St. John’s Greek Catholic Society of Syracuse, New York, under the latter provisions of the Religious Corporations Law. Its membership is made up largely of men and women of foreign birth, most of whom are unable to speak, read or write the English language, and all of whom are unacquainted with the intricacies of corporate existence.

From the very outset of the organization dissension arose among the members, and one group arrayed itself against the other. The feeling at times ran high; it would then die down, only to be fanned into flames again on the slightest occasion. We are told that these people are deeply religious, but their meetings were turbulent and disorderly. They failed to heed the admonition of St. Paul to the church at Corinth, when he said: Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians, 14:40.) Their business meetings were opened by prayer, but ended in such confusion and uproar that the police were often called in to restore order. It may well be said that the members belong to the church militant, rather than the church triumphant.

The warring factions have not hesitated to resort to the courts in an effort to enforce what they claim to be their legal rights, and the money of these comparatively poor people, which should have gone to the support of the Gospel, has been diverted to pay the cost of expensive litigation.

In line with the general policy of the parent church, and on the advice of the then American bishop, a new certificate of incorporation was filed in the Onondaga county clerk’s office on June 2, [135]*1351913, incorporating the St. John the Baptist Buthenian Greek Catholic Church, to take care of and manage the temporal affairs of the Buthenian Greek Church in the parish of Syracuse, and vesting the government and management of the corporation in a board of trustees of five, which should be composed of the bishop of the church in America, the vicar general, the priest in charge of the parish, and two lay members to be chosen annually at an election at which all male members of the congregation in good standing should be entitled to vote, and which members thus chosen should be approved by the bishop. The property of the church, however, was never turned over to the new corporation. Title has remained in the 1900 corporation.

From 1913 until 1932 the 1900 corporation practically ceased to function. No trustees or officers were elected, and the corporation was allowed to sleep. The secular pursuits of the organization were taken over by the 1913 corporation, and the two lay trustees called for by that charter were annually elected. The religious services of the church and all its spiritual affairs have constantly been under the supervision and direction of the various priests who have been assigned by the Buthenian Greek Catholic bishop since that prelate was first sent to the United States in 1907.

In 1932 the trouble in the church broke out anew, and an attempt was made by the insurgent group to revive the 1900 corporation, and to elect the six trustees called for by its by-laws. This effort was opposed by the priest and the group in sympathy with him. Two groups of six each claim to be the legally elected trustees of that organization; one, the insurgent faction, composed of Michael Puchar, Nicholas Spak, Mike Schrab, Peter Fecyk, Peter Rischak and Wasyl Kyrek, and the other, the regulars, composed of Harry Hnatko, Philip Kutlick, Elisa Kopko, Paul Kamenetzka, Panko Macko and Peter Weyshshin. We are asked to pass upon the legality of the various elections under which these men claim to hold office, and to confirm the election of one group or the other, if that can properly be done, and if not, to order a new election.

Upon the return of the order to show cause a referee was appointed “ to hear, try and report to this court which of the alleged trustees of St. John’s Greek Catholic Church of Syracuse, New York, have been duly elected * * *, or, in the alternative, as to whether a new election should be ordered.” The referee has found that none of the claimants were legally chosen, and that a new election should be had. The trial court has disapproved this conclusion, and has confirmed the election of the insurgent group headed by Michael Puchar.

[136]*136Section 25 of the General Corporation Law, under which the court derives its power to act in the present proceeding, reads as follows: Upon the application of any member aggrieved by an election, and upon notice to the persons declared elected thereat, the corporation and such other persons as the court may direct, the Supreme Court at a Special Term thereof shall forthwith hear the proofs and allegations of the parties, and confirm the election or order a new election, as justice may require.”

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

Related

Matter of Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Assn.
124 A.D.3d 13 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Esformes v. Brinn
52 A.D.3d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana
879 N.E.2d 1282 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana
31 A.D.3d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Sillah v. Tanvir
18 A.D.3d 223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Atifa v. Shairzad
2004 NY Slip Op 50752(U) (New York Supreme Court, Queens County, 2004)
Venigalla v. Alagappan
307 A.D.2d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
St. Matthew Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Inc. v. Creech
196 Misc. 2d 843 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Ronnen v. Ajax Electric Motor Corp.
671 N.E.2d 534 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Watt Samakki Dhammikaram, Inc. v. Thenjitto
166 Misc. 2d 16 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
In re Oscar C.
147 Misc. 2d 761 (NYC Family Court, 1990)
Park Slope Jewish Center v. Stern
128 A.D.2d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Kissel v. Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Holy Trinity Church
103 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Azzi v. Ryan
120 Misc. 2d 121 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Kroth v. Congregation Chebra Ukadisha Bnai Israel Mikalwarie
105 Misc. 2d 904 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Wolpert v. First National Bank of East Islip
381 F. Supp. 625 (E.D. New York, 1974)
Rodyk v. Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox Church of St. Volodimir, Inc.
31 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Archinal v. Reuss
46 Misc. 2d 428 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Kupperman v. Congregation Nusach Sfard of Bronx
39 Misc. 2d 107 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Dal-Tran Service Co. v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc.
14 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D. 132, 295 N.Y.S. 989, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-kaminsky-nyappdiv-1937.