Matter of Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Assn.

124 A.D.3d 13, 996 N.Y.S.2d 236

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 13, 2014
• Docket: 110149/11 11572
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Gische, J.

This is a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by a monk (Master Tung), a nun (Wai Ching Chen), and a lay person (Shun Yi Mon), who were members of the China Buddhist Association (CBA) until they were excommunicated from the CBA. Respondents are the CBA, Master Mew Fung Chen (Master Chen), the original founder and spiritual leader of the CBA who performed the excommunication, and two trustees (Ming Yee and Chih Chen Ma) he recently appointed in 2011. The petition seeks a judgment directing the CBA to hold an annual membership meeting, as required by CBA’s bylaws, the appointment of a receiver to determine the names and addresses of all CBA members eligible to vote, and a vote regarding the CBA’s future. Supreme Court (Geoffrey Wright, J.) granted the petition to the extent of invalidating a May 2011

* meeting and election held by the CBA and ordering that a duly convened meeting be held in the future. The order specifically requires that petitioners be notified of that meeting so they can participate. Petitioners’ ultimate goal is to vote for the division of the CBA into two separate religious corporations, each with legal ownership of its own, completely independent, temple.

Respondents have appealed, arguing that the petition should be dismissed because the relief sought by petitioners cannot be decided through the application of neutral principles of law, and that by invalidating the May 2011 meeting and election, and directing that petitioners be permitted to participate in a future CBA meeting, the court interfered with religious matters which are constitutionally protected. In particular, respondents argue that because only CBA members can attend and vote at meetings, the court cannot provide the relief sought without necessarily determining the validity of the excommunications, which is a purely ecclesiastical matter. We reverse the Supreme Court’s grant of the petition because the issues raised are not secular in nature, but religious, and cannot be resolved by the application of neutral principles of law.

The CBA was incorporated in October 1963 by Master Chen. Before its incorporation, the CBA existed as an unincorporated Buddhist society. Thereafter, in 1970, the CBA applied for, and was granted, an exemption from federal income tax as a religious organization (Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 501 [c] [3]). Eventually, the CBA acquired real property, including property at 245 Canal Street, New York, New York (Manhattan temple), and in Flushing, New York (Queens temple), where it established temples. The Queens temple is the corporate headquarters of the CBA. The deeds to these and other real properties are titled in the name of the CBA. Petitioners worshiped at the Manhattan temple until they were excommunicated and it was closed.

The first meeting of the CBA was held in January 1964. At that meeting, the incorporators selected officers and adopted bylaws. Master Chen was made the CBA’s president and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, consisting of three trustees, Master Chen included. Article two of the bylaws provides that the CBA was organized for the following purposes:

“1. To foster and promote the teachings of Buddhism. 2. To maintain a house of worship for all those who wish to learn and practice the Buddhist religion. 3. [T]o conduct Buddhist religious services. 4. To foster fellowship among its members and with members of other Buddhist and religious groups.”

Although the bylaws provide for officers to serve fixed terms of three years, and annual elections to be held each January, this was the first and only meeting and election ever held by the CBA until the meeting in May 2011. Now age 86, Master Chen is the sole surviving original corporate officer.

Article three of the bylaws provides that “[m] ember ship in this organization shall be open to all who are of the Buddhist faith and have been admitted as disciples.” None of the corporate governance documents, including the bylaws, otherwise specifies any procedure by which someone becomes a member, clergy person, or disciple of the CBA, nor do any of these documents specify how a member, clergy person, or disciple of the CBA is excommunicated, stripped of his or her membership, or denied privileges in the CBA, including the right to worship at any CBA-owned temple. Article four of the bylaws pertains to meetings and who may attend, stating that notice of the annual meeting will be mailed to “every member in good standing.” The bylaws also permit the president to call a special meeting, if he deems it “[in] the best interest of the organization.” Article five provides that “any question may be voted upon in the manner and style provided for election of officers and directors.” The election of officers and directors requires a marked ballot. Article seven addresses votes by the trustees, vacancies and removal of officers and article eight broadly provides that the CBA’s president has “such powers as may be reasonably construed as belonging to the chief executive of any organization.” Article eleven provides for the payment of dues in the annual sum of $10.00.

In 1996, Master Chen, on behalf of the CBA, offered Master Tung employment as a monk and sponsored his application for an immigration visa. Among Master Tung’s duties were teaching new members the manners of worship, praying, chanting, worshiping, preaching and conducting Buddhist ceremonies. In 1998, Master Chen presented Master Tung with a letter of appointment, appointing him a resident monk of the CBA, exhorting Master Tung to “spread the trust of Buddhism.”

The relationship among the congregants of the CBA was harmonious until sometime in 2009 when a power struggle developed. The Manhattan temple contingent views Master Tung as their spiritual leader and believes that the Manhattan temple should be autonomous. Master Chen, however, regards Master Tung as a rogue monk who has shown a lapse in faith, promoted disharmony within the CBA, disobeyed his (Master Chen’s) authority, strayed from the path of righteousness and engaged in wayward behavior contrary to Buddhist tenets. This struggle has, at times, escalated into violence, necessitating police intervention, and there have been protests at the Manhattan temple, which have attracted media attention.

By letter dated September 23, 2010, Master Chen severed his “master-apprentice relationship” with Master Tung and notified him that he was to leave the Manhattan temple immediately, never to return to that, or any other, temple associated with the CBA. According to Master Chen, he took such actions to prevent this “spiritual pollution” from spreading to the CBA’s other temples. After designating two trustees to fill vacancies on the board, the board met in April 2011 to address the September 2010 events. They resolved that it was in CBA’s best interest to excommunicate petitioners and close the Manhattan temple. Subsequently, by notice dated May 16, 2011, in which he refers to his “ultimate and ecclesiastical authority over all activities in these three temples,” Master Chen stripped the Manhattan disciples (petitioners) “of their blessing,” effectively excommunicating them. The excommunication and petitioners’ termination from employment was later ratified by the board of trustees in June 2011. Although petitioners are forbidden from worshiping at any CBA-owned temple, they may worship at any non-CBA temple available to them.

In invalidating the May 2011 meeting, the Supreme Court found that the bylaws make no reference to excommunication and stated that “I note further, that no particular lapse of faith to justify the excommunication was given” (2012 NY Slip Op 33698[U], *3 [2012]). The court below also stated that “[Respondents have no real active interest in the [Manhattan temple and] it is my hope that the two sides will, with the guidance of their faith, find a way to co-exist, at least until the membership meeting is held” (id. at *4).

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is binding on the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees religious bodies “independence from secular control or manipulation, in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine” (Kedroff v Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 US 94, 116 [1952]). Consequently, courts are forbidden from “interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs” (Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007] [citation omitted]). Only when disputes can be resolved by neutral principles of law may the courts step in (see First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 116-117 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). The issues before us, however, cannot be resolved through the application of “neutral principles of law” but entail an inquiry into the validity of petitioners’ excommunications. Because this is an entirely ecclesiastical matter, we are forbidden from such an inquiry (Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, 9 NY3d at 286).

The neutral principles of law approach allows the court to apply principles of law to disputes, even if a religious body is involved. In doing so, the court can examine internal organizational documents, like the bylaws, which may apply to or shed light on the dispute, as well as the Religious Corporations Law. Where disputes concern real property, the court can also look to the deeds to resolve the issues before it (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady, 62 NY2d at 121-123). The deeds for these temples provide no support for petitioners’ claims, however, because title to the real property, including the temples involved, is held by the CBA. Petitioners can only achieve their ultimate objective by legally separating the two factions via a successful membership vote approving such measure. However, neither the bylaws, nor the Religious Corporations Law, provide petitioners with any right to vote at a CBA meeting. CBA’s bylaws permit CBA members to vote and membership in the CBA is conditioned on being of the Buddhist faith and admission as a disciple. It is undisputed that Master Chen acted within his spiritual authority when he originally accepted petitioners as his disciples and unilaterally named Master Tung the resident monk of the Manhattan temple. The bylaws place no express or implied restrictions on whom Master Chen can choose to make a member of the CBA, or whom he can expel from membership. It is unrefuted that membership is a prerequisite to becoming a member of the clergy.

At first blush the petition appears to present a straightforward issue of corporate governance, specifically whether various corporate actions, including a meeting held in May 2011, were improperly taken, thereby depriving petitioners of their right to participate in those events. We take no issue with petitioners’ claim and the dissent’s conclusion that the CBA has not followed corporate formalities which may impact on whether the parliamentary acts undertaken by it are valid. We hold, however, that because petitioners are not members of the CBA based upon Master Chen’s excommunication of them, they cannot challenge these corporate actions. Article four of the bylaws limits attendance at annual and special meetings by providing that notices of the annual meeting must be sent to “every member in good standing” and special meetings are open to “members.” Since petitioners were excommunicated from the CBA in September 2010, and they were no longer members when these various parliamentary actions were taken, they had no right to be notified of, or participate in, the meetings held or votes taken. Petitioners contend that their excommunication was completely motivated by Master Chen’s desire to squelch the simmering underlying dispute over ownership of real property in Manhattan and Queens where the CBA owns temples. Even where the parties’ dispute concerns control of church property, the court will not intervene in matters that are predominantly religious disagreements (Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v Milivojevich, 426 US 696 [1976]).

It is impermissible for a court to look behind an ecclesiastical determination or act to examine the subjective reasons for which it was undertaken (Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, 9 NY3d at 286; Upstate N.Y. Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. v Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church of Buffalo, 185 AD2d 693, 694 [4th Dept 1992], citing Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v Milivojevich, 426 US at 721-722).

Although a court may determine whether a religious organization has adhered to its membership requirements by examining corporate documents, such as the bylaws, here the bylaws are unhelpful because they are silent on that issue. Membership is solely conditioned on discipleship and it is unrefuted that Master Chen has always made that determination, even in the case of petitioners. Whether petitioners’ excommunication and expulsion from the CBA was justified calls into question religious dogma, practices and issues well beyond any membership criteria found in CBA’s bylaws which do not provide any procedure for or limitation on how a member is expelled or excommunicated from the CBA.

We find that the reasoning and holding of the Court of Appeals in the strikingly similar recent case of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar compels our conclusion. As in the proceeding before us, Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar involved an election controversy between two rival factions of a religious congregation. Central to that controversy was whether a particular member had been properly expelled from the congregation by the Grand Rabbi, making him unqualified to vote on matters of the congregation’s corporate governance. In concluding that the dispute could not be decided through application of neutral principles of law, the Court observed that “[a] decision as to whether or not a member is in good standing is binding on the courts when examining the standards of membership requires intrusion into constitutionally protected ecclesiastical matters” (Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, 9 NY3d at 288). Noting that the congregation’s bylaws “condition membership on religious criteria, including whether a congregant follows the ‘ways of the Torah’,” the Court found that whether the member was properly expelled “calls into question religious issues beyond any membership criteria found in the Congregation’s bylaws” (id).

In this proceeding, petitioners’ claims are likewise nonjusticiable, as they cannot be resolved based on neutral principles of law, but involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine or practice (id. at 286-287; see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. & Can., 1 AD3d 180, 182 [1st Dept 2003]). Here, membership in the CBA requires being of the Buddhist faith and admission as a disciple. There are no governance provisions for becoming a disciple or for reversal of that process, clearly making this an entirely discretionary matter vested in its leader and premised on religious, not secular, principles (Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, 9 NY3d at 288).

Respondents’ subsequent decision to elect officers and hold a meeting ratifying Master Chen’s excommunication of petitioners does not mean that secular rules and legal principles apply to resolve the parties’ disputes. Nor does it mean that the respondents, by having engaged in various parliamentary acts, have opted for a secular basis by which to excommunicate members. Consequently, the motion court erred in directing a new meeting on the basis that the meeting held by the CBA in May 2011 was improperly called.

The dissent maintains that petitioners have standing as members to challenge the actions taken in May 2011, because they meet the alternative definition of “members” in Religious Corporations Law § 195, which is based upon attendance and financial contribution. Petitioners, however, did not assert that claim in their petition, or raise it in the underlying motion, or make that argument in their responsive briefs before this court. We believe that we cannot decide whether Religious Corporations Law § 195 has any application to this proceeding when the parties were not given a full and fair opportunity to argue the issue. Moreover, the affidavits of some CBA members other than petitioners who state that they regularly worship at the Manhattan temple and contribute to the CBA do not, on their face, establish a predicate for the application of Religious Corporations Law § 195; it is the petitioners who must qualify as members to have standing. In any event, the statements are conclusory, tracking the statutory language, but without any factual support.

We also disagree with the dissent that this matter is distinguishable from the issues considered by the Court of Appeals in Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar because the CBA is not part of a larger hierarchical body with a well organized and centralized governing body, or there is no established tradition for the dismissal of a Buddhist monk, much less, the closure of a Buddhist temple. Constitutional protections to practice one’s religion are not limited by the manner of its organization or structure (see Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y., 55 NY2d 512, 521-523 [1982]). We also disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that we should adjudicate the issue of whether a lone monk can exercise authoritarian control over the property of a religious corporation. To consider whether a spiritual leader wields too much power or authority over his congregants, in the absence of corporate restrictions on such power, places the court in the position of evaluating ecclesiastical doctrine, law, practices, procedures and rulings (see Presbyterian Church in U. S. v Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 US 440, 447 [1969]; see also Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v Congregation B’nai Jacob, 90 NY2d 517, 521 [1997]). We cannot consider whether one master or faction is better suited or more correct for the CBA than another (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady, 62 NY2d at 117). To do so would be to enter a “forbidden [domain]” (id. at 116). Although we recognize that there may be ongoing turmoil within the CBA, regardless of the parties’ underlying motivations, those disputes cannot be resolved through the application of neutral legal principles and petitioners have no right to the relief demanded.

Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 31, 2012, which granted the petition to the extent of invalidating the China Buddhist Association’s May 2011 meeting and directed that another general meeting be held with petitioners included should be reversed, on the law, without costs, the order vacated, and the petition dismissed.

Though referring to the “May 2011” meeting, this is apparently a shorthand reference by the court below, and even in the briefs, to a number of actions taken by the CBA around that time, including a meeting.