Presbytery of Long Island, respondent, v. Central Presbyterian Church, appellant (and a third-Party action). (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Presbytery of Long Island, respondent, v. Central Presbyterian Church, appellant (and a third-Party action).

2021–04361

Decided: July 08, 2026

BETSY BARROS, J.P. LINDA CHRISTOPHER CARL J. LANDICINO LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

Farrell Fritz P.C., Uniondale, N.Y. (John R. Morken of counsel), for appellant. Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Milano of counsel), for respondent. In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martha L. Luft, J.), dated June 4, 2021.  The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, declaring that the subject property is not held in trust for the plaintiff, and on its counterclaims to quiet title and, upon searching the record, awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the subject property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing the defendant's counterclaims to quiet title. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the subject property is held in trust for the plaintiff. In September 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff.  Central interposed an answer asserting, among other things, counterclaims to quiet title to the 240 Main Street property and to Central's manse.  In opposition to the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Central's counterclaims, Central cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, declaring that the 240 Main Street property is not held in trust for the plaintiff, and on its counterclaims to quiet title.  In an order dated June 3, 2021, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied Central's cross-motion and, upon searching the record, awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing Central's counterclaims to quiet title.  Central appeals. Here, in support of its cross-motion, Central failed to establish, prima facie, that the 240 Main Street property is not held in trust for the plaintiff (see id.;  Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt.  Church [U.S.A.] v Trustees of First Presbyt.  Church & Congregation of Ridgeberry, 72 AD3d 78, 93).  Contrary to Central's contentions, applying article four of the Religious Corporations Law to determine whether the plaintiff obtained an interest in Central's property prior to Central's dismissal from the PCUSA did not unconstitutionally prefer one religious group over another (see Religious Corporations Law § 60;  cf.  Grumet v Cuomo, 90 N.Y.2d 57, 69), and the provision of the PCUSA Constitution that “ecclesiastical discipline” is “not attended with any civil effects” does not preclude civil enforcement of the provisions of the PCUSA Constitution concerning the ownership and control of church property (see First Presbyt.  Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt.  Church in U.S. of Am., 62 N.Y.2d at 122).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Central's cross-motion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, upon searching the record, properly awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing Central's counterclaims to quiet title.  So long as Central was a Presbyterian church in connection with the PCUSA, Central's trustees were required to administer Central's property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution (see Religious Corporations Law §§ 60, 69[3] ), and the PCUSA Constitution expressly places the property of a congregation in a trust and empowers the respective presbytery to determine the disposition of such property in the event a congregation ceases to use the property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution.  Moreover, the plaintiff established that Central had notice and knowledge of the claimed trust in 1980 and that Central subsequently conducted its affairs in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution, including by demanding the plaintiff “take corrective action” after another congregation “ordained two homosexuals” in 1994, by seeking the plaintiff's approval to sell a manse in 1996, and by seeking the plaintiff's approval before leaving the denomination (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt.  Church [U.S.A.] v Trustees of First Presbyt.  Church & Congregation of Ridgeberry, 72 AD3d at 96–98). Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the 240 Main Street Property is held in trust for the plaintiff (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334).