From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mandel v. Silber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

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. KHAN

Opinion

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.


Summaries of

Mandel v. Silber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2003
304 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

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. KHAN
Case details for

Mandel v. Silber

Case Details

Full title:MOSHE MANDEL, appellant, v. MENACHEM ZCHARYA SILBER, ET AL., respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 7, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 887

Citing Cases

Burstin v. Spoder

In that case, plaintiff wife brought an action against several rabbis and rabbinical courts, alleging…

YU-HSIUNG CHEN v. HAO

Similarly, the third cause of action, alleging defamation, and fifth cause of action, alleging…