Macedonia Church of the Nazarene v. Alexander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macedonia Church of the Nazarene v. Alexander

112 A.D.3d 439, 975 N.Y.S.2d 873

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 439 (Macedonia Church of the Nazarene v. Alexander) 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

Macedonia Church of the Nazarene v. Alexander, 112 A.D.3d 439, 975 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered September 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of finding that defendant The Advisory Board of the Metro New York District Church of the Nazarene is entitled to legal title to the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant was authorized, pursuant to the terms of the church’s governing manual, to transfer the subject property from plaintiff after its withdrawal from the Church of the Nazarene (see generally First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 117-118 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered September 5, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of finding that defendant The Advisory Board of the Metro New York District Church of the Nazarene is entitled to legal title to the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant was authorized, pursuant to the terms of the church’s governing manual, to transfer the subject property from plaintiff after its withdrawal from the Church of the Nazarene (see generally First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 117-118 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). Concur — Tom, J.R, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 439, 975 N.Y.S.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macedonia-church-of-the-nazarene-v-alexander-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack