Summary
In Mandel v Silber (304 AD2d 538 [2d Dept 2003]), without setting out or describing the allegedly defamatory statement, the court reached the opposite conclusion, holding that "this matter cannot be decided by application of neutral principles of law," and that "[r]esolution... would necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine and a determination as to whether the plaintiff violated religious law" (see id.)
Summary of this case from KAPLAN v. KHANOpinion
2002-06213
Submitted March 13, 2003.
April 7, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated May 15, 2002, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to its original determination in an order dated November 30, 2001, granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the third cause of action in the complaint alleging defamation.
S. Jerome Levey, Pearl River, N.Y., for appellant.
Meissner, Kleinberg Finkel, LLP, New York, N.Y. (George S. Meissner and Laurel J. Weinberg of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the courts from "interfering in or determining religious disputes" (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Amer., 62 N.Y.2d 110, 116, cert denied 469 U.S. 1037). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, this matter cannot be decided by application of neutral principles of law (cf. First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Amer., supra at 120). Resolution of the parties' dispute would necessarily involve an impermissible inquiry into religious doctrine and a determination as to whether the plaintiff violated religious law (see Lightman v. Flaum, 97 N.Y.2d 128, 137, cert denied 535 U.S. 1096 [May 28, 2002]; Sam v. Church of St. Mark, 293 A.D.2d 663, 664; Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v. Stern, 128 A.D.2d 847, 848). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action alleging defamation.
In light of our determination, we have not considered the remaining grounds for dismissal asserted by the defendants, all but one of which, in any event, are unpreserved for appellate review.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.