You are here: / / DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY...
,

DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, interpreting both real estate law and the canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church, determined a corrected deed superseded the deed which indicated the property was held in trust for defendant church, St. Matthias. St. Matthias had separated from the Episcopal Church and both the corrected deed and the applicable canons eliminated St. Matthias’s property rights:

​

The 1905 corrected deed removed any language indicating that the property was being held in trust for the congregation of St. Matthias. Where a deed of correction has been obtained, the corrective deed will control and the title of the grantee will be determined by the new grant … . The 1905 deed superseded the 1904 deed and was controlling.

Even if the 1905 deed did not supersede the 1904 deed, the Supreme Court was correct in holding that the ownership of the property vested in the [plaintiff] upon the separation of St. Matthias … from the Episcopal Church pursuant to the applicable canons of the … National Church … and the plaintiff Episcopal Diocese of Long Island … . By accepting the principles of the National Church and the Diocese for approximately 100 years, the defendants were subject to their canons, rules, and practices … .  Episcopal Diocese of Long Is. v St. Matthias Nondenominational Ministries, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00276, Second Dept 1-17-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (DEED, RELIGIOUS LAW, DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT))/DEEDS (CORRECTED DEED,  DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT))/RELIGION (CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REAL PROPERTY,  DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT))/CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL AND STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THE INCIDENT WAS ELEVATION-RELATED; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE MOTHER’S DEFAULT, CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT A HEARING AND FINDINGS ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained
Court’s Review Powers Re: a Planning Board’s Denial of a Subdivision Application Explained
THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO CARE FOR BURNS ON THE CHILD’S LEGS WERE GROSSLY INADEQUATE, THOSE MEASURES DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING DEFENDANT DID NOT CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FORECLOSURE DID NOT START RUNNING; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION,... IN A COMPREHENSIVE AND METICULOUS DECISION, THE SECOND DEPT, AFTER ANALYZING...