Lutheran Church of the Risen Christ, Missouri Synod, appellant, v. Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, respondent, et al., defendant. (2026)

Argued—October 31, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

C/

In an action, inter alia, to impose a constructive trust upon certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated December 23, 2022.  The order granted the motion of the defendant Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it is denied.

“ ‘The First Amendment forbids civil courts 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' ” (Eltingville Lutheran Church v. Rimbo, 174 AD3d 856, 857–858, quoting Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286;  see Chestnut v. United Methodist Church, 230 AD3d 182, 196).  “However, a court may resolve church property disputes ‘when the case can be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of ․ law, without reference to any religious principle’ ” (Eltingville Lutheran Church v. Rimbo, 174 AD3d at 857–858 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d at 286).  “ ‘The neutral principles of law approach requires courts to apply objective, well-established principles of secular law to the issues,’ and ‘[i]n doing so, courts may rely upon internal documents, such as a congregation's bylaws, but only if those documents do not require interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrine’ ” (Chestnut v. United Methodist Church, 230 AD3d at 197, quoting Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana, 9 NY3d at 286).

Here, contrary to Synod's contention, it failed to demonstrate that the causes of action cannot be resolved solely upon the application of neutral principles of law, without reference to any religious principle (see Escobar v Segunda Iglesia Pentecostal Juan 3:16 Asamblea de Dios, 232 AD3d 719, 720;  Chestnut v. United Methodist Church, 230 AD3d at 197;  cf.  Eltingville Lutheran Church v Rimbo, 174 AD3d at 857–858).  Accordingly, Synod's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it should have been denied.

Synod's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., FORD, DOWLING and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court