You are here: / Religion
,

A MARRIAGE WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A MARRIAGE LICENSE WILL BE DEEMED VALID IN NEW YORK IF THE MARRIAGE IS “SOLEMNIZED;” HERE THE CEREMONY PERFORMED BY THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DEEMED A “FAMILY BLESSING,” NOT A “MARRIAGE,” BECAUSE THE “SOLEMNIZATION” REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, determined the parties in this divorce proceeding had never been married:

In this action for divorce, we are asked to determine whether the parties are validly married under the New York Domestic Relations Law despite not obtaining a marriage license prior to their alleged wedding ceremony. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 25, a marriage is not void for failure to obtain a marriage license if the marriage is solemnized. A marriage is solemnized under Domestic Relations Law § 12 when a couple solemnly declares in the presence of a clergyman, magistrate, or one-day marriage officiant and attending witness or witnesses that they take each other as spouses. Even when the parties do not make this solemn declaration that they take each other as spouses, a marriage will still be valid without a license pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 12 when the marriage is solemnized in the manner used and practiced in the couple’s respective denomination. As we find that neither of these scenarios occurred, we hold that the parties are not validly married pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law.

On July 29, 2017, the parties took part in a baptism of their son at a Coptic Orthodox Church performed by Bishop Anba David of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of New York and New England and attended by the church’s priest, Father Gregory Saroufeem. After the baptism was completed, plaintiff was asked if she wished to be baptized into the Coptic Orthodox Church. She assented, and after plaintiff underwent certain preparations, the Bishop performed the baptism.

After the second baptism, plaintiff contends that the Bishop asked if she and defendant wished to be married, she and defendant agreed, and the Bishop performed an impromptu wedding ceremony. Defendant contends that the ceremony was a family blessing and not a marriage. It is undisputed that the parties did not have a marriage license, did not exchange rings, made no vows during the ceremony and did not execute a certificate of marriage, among other traditional requirements of the Coptic Church. Funti v Andrews, 2026 NY Slip Op 00012, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A marriage entered into without first obtaining a marriage license is valid in New York if the marriage is “solemnized.” Consult this opinion for a description of the :solemnization” requirements (which were not met here).

 

, , ,

THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION BY EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL; THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION PRECLUDES ACTIONS AGAINST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE; THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the-hostile work-environment causes of action by employees of a private Catholic high school should not have been dismissed pursuant to the “ministerial exception” which, in certain circumstances, will preclude employment discrimination actions against a religious institution:

Plaintiffs … were all employed by … a private Catholic school . The case stems from plaintiffs’ allegations that the school’s Principal … regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. Plaintiffs further allege that … the school’s Vice Principal … and … the school’s Dean of Men, regularly repeated [the Principal’s] vile language and assisted in his efforts to discriminate against staff. In addition, plaintiffs allege that … the head of defendant Archdiocese of New York … and the defendant Archdiocese knew about [the Principal’s] conduct but did nothing to stop it.

Plaintiffs’ claims for hostile work environment were improperly dismissed under the ministerial exception, which precludes some employment claims against religious institutions on First Amendment grounds … . Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct … . * * *

Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for [the Principal’s] appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants’ personnel decisions. Boliak v Reilly, 2025 NY Slip Op 07088, First Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Some employment discrimination actions against religious institutions are barred by the ministerial exception. Here the allegations plaintiffs, employees of a private Catholic School, were harassed by school officials did not require a court’s interference with religious doctrine and therefore were not precluded by the ministerial exception.​

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT TEMPLE AS A “FULL TIME JEWISH EDUCATOR,” WAS FIRED AFTER WRITING A BLOG POST CRITICIZING ISRAEL AND ZIONISM; PLAINTIFF SUED ALLEGING HER FIRING WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW; THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE LABOR-LAW-VIOLATION THEORY FINDING THAT THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ITS MINISTERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurrences, determined the ministerial exception precluded this employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff, a “full time Jewish educator” employed by the Westchester Reform Temple. Plaintiff was fired after writing a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism. She alleged her firing was a violation of Labor Law 201-d (2) which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee based on legal “recreational activities.” The court did not address the viability of the Labor-Law theory. The court held that plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the ministerial exception, which precludes application of employment discrimination laws to relationships between a religious institution and its ministers:

We need not resolve today questions such as whether the [Labor Law 201-d (2)] covers blogging specifically or public expression generated during any protected activity, because the ministerial exception dispositively bars Plaintiff’s claim. That exception “precludes application of [employment discrimination] legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers” … . Requiring a religious institution “to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing [them] for failing to do so” both “infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments” and “violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions” … . * * *

Defendants invoked the ministerial exception here as grounds for dismissal on a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion. Such a motion “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s offer letter, which is appended as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. It states that Plaintiff was responsible for guiding the development of programs such as “Shabbat, Havdalah, and other teen led events and initiatives”; planning, supporting, and attending “Confirmation” experiences; and supporting the “Rabbi’s Table initiative.” In her fifteen weekly hours of teaching, she was responsible for “Chevruta (1:1 tutoring for our learners),” “Pre-bimah tutoring,” and “Parsha of the week.” And she was responsible for furthering the Temple’s “mission,” including by “support[ing] the development of a strong Jewish identity” and “bringing Torah to life and inspiring Jewish dreams.” Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 2025 NY Slip Op 06958, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” precludes the application of employment discrimination laws to the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Here the ministerial exception precluded a suit alleging plaintiff was fired from her teaching job at the defendant temple for a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism.

 

, , , ,

BECAUSE THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY A CHURCH WAS NOT BEING USED AS A RETREAT IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING LAWS AND THEREFORE IS TAX EXEMPT, THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CONSTRAINED TO AFFIRM; THERE WAS A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined Supreme Court and the Appellate Division properly ruled that the property in Sullivan County purchased by a church in Queens was not being used in violation of the zoning laws and was tax-exempt. The factual question was whether the property was being used as a retreat for church members, which would violate the zoning laws, or whether the property was being used to grow vegetables, which would not violate the zoning law. The majority held it was constrained to affirm because there was support in the record for the factual findings made by Supreme Court:

These proceedings under the Real Property Tax Law present a factual dispute about how a church based in Flushing, Queens, actually used a property it purchased in the Town of Callicoon. Because the lower courts committed no legal error, and because we may not reweigh facts or redetermine issues of credibility, we affirm. * * *

Our role is not to substitute our judgment for that of the hearing court but rather to determine whether there is record support for the decision it reached. Here, the trial record supports Supreme Court’s finding, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that although petitioner may have purchased the property with the intention of using it as a “retreat,”[FN4] its actual use of the property was to clear approximately one acre of the parcel and, on that cleared area, grow vegetables for charitable distribution to low-income Queens residents. The only other trial evidence about actual use of the property was that the Town Supervisor, who lived across the street from the subject property, regularly harvested hay from the property and never saw any overnight use of the property for “retreat” purposes. Matter of First United Methodist Church in Flushing v Assessor, Town of Callicoon, 2025 NY Slip Op 06526. CtApp 11-24-25

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals is constrained to accept the lower courts’ factual findings if there is support for them in the record.

 

, ,

A COURT CANNOT MANDATE A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS EXERCISE FOR A CHILD (ORDERING THAT A CHILD ATTEND A SPECIFIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE); RATHER, THE COURT SHOULD DESIGNATE A PARENT TO HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER A CHILD’S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND EXCERCISE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the order that a child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints …” was unconstitutional in that it mandated specific religious exercise:

… [T]he court’s order that the parties’ middle child “shall attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints every Sunday” except for six Sundays per year when the mother has access with the child, is unconstitutional insofar as it mandates specific religious exercise … . … [W]e remit the matter to Family Court to designate which parent will have decision-making authority for that child’s religious education and practice. Matter of Clark v Strassburg, 2025 NY Slip Op 04390, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: It is unconstitutional for a court, in the context of a Family Court proceeding, to order that a child attend a particular church. The court should designate a parent to have decision-making authority over a child’s religious education and practice.

 

, ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL OFFERS EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT OFFERED BY LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE PROPERLY PROMULGATED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the regulations which allow the Commissioner of Education to enforce the requirement that nonpublic schools provide an education “substantially equivalent” to that provided by local public schools were properly promulgated:

​Petitioners argue that 8 NYCRR 130.6 (c) (2) (i) and 8 NYCRR 130.8 (d) (7) (i) are invalid because they compel parents to “unenroll” their children from schools deemed not substantially equivalent, authorizing and necessarily leading to school closures, and that this exceeds the authority of the Commissioner. * * *

The regulatory provisions at issue here state that, in the event of a negative substantial equivalency determination, “the nonpublic school shall no longer be deemed a school which provides compulsory education fulfilling the requirements of Article 65 of the Education Law” … . A determination that a nonpublic school has failed to meet the substantial equivalence requirement leads naturally to this acknowledgement—that the nonpublic school fails to comply with the Education Law’s substantial equivalency mandate and thus is not a school that fulfills the statutory requirement for compulsory education. Far from exceeding the Commissioner’s statutory authority, the regulations simply establish a mechanism by which the statutory mandate is enforced. In this regard, instead of being contrary to the statute’s purpose, the challenged regulations are a natural consequence flowing from the statutory language itself.

Contrary to petitioners’ claims, nothing in these provisions requires that parents “unenroll” their children from a nonpublic school deemed not to provide substantially equivalent instruction. Nor do the regulations authorize school closures. The provisions merely state that the nonpublic school does not provide substantially equivalent instruction—a determination well within the authority provided to the Commissioner by the statute. The parent or custodian must determine how then to ensure their compliance with the Education Law. Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2025 NY Slip Op 03689, CtApp 6-18-25

 

, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

, ,

THE RELIGIOUS NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, THE OWNER OF THE RESIDENCE PROVIDED FOR THE TORAH READER AND HIS FAMILY, WAS ENTITLED TO A REAL-PROPERTY-TAX EXEMPTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined the not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence used by Marcus, the Torah reader, and his family:​

This appeal provides this Court with an opportunity to clarify the standards courts should consider when deciding whether a covered not-for-profit corporation is entitled to a full tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for property allegedly utilized primarily in furtherance of exempt purposes. The circumstances presented here involve an Orthodox Jewish religious corporation seeking an exemption for a residential property used, inter alia, to house its Torah reader and his family. … [W]e conclude … that the petitioner demonstrated that the subject property was used primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes during the 2015 tax year. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the petition to review the real property tax assessment for that year. * * *

… [T]he petitioner’s submissions established that it offered Marcus housing within walking distance of the synagogue in order to continue to retain his expert services as a Torah reader, as his religious beliefs prohibited him from driving to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on Jewish holy days, and he had a growing family which made walking from his prior apartment impractical … . The petitioner’s rabbi also stated that, upon learning that Marcus could not continue in his role as Torah reader without residing closer to the synagogue, “[t]he congregation was unable to identify any qualified Torah [r]eader within walking distance [thereof].” Considering … that “[t]he requirement of reading from the Torah” during services “is absolute and cannot be waived,” as explained by the rabbi, the petitioner’s religious “goal[s]” were “advance[d]” by providing Marcus with housing closer to the synagogue … . Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v Town/Village of Harrison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01634, Second Dept 3-19-25

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit religious corporation was entitled to an exemption from real property tax for a residence provided to the Torah reader and his family because the residence was used “primarily in furtherance of its religious purposes” during the relevant tax year.​

 

, , , , ,

THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” IS GROUNDED IN THE FIRST AMEMDMENT AND MAY RESTRICT A STATE AGENCY’S REVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS; THE EXCEPTION IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, NOT A JURISDICTIONAL BAR, TO A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reversing the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and the Appellate Division, determined the so-called “ministerial exception” was not a jurisdictional bar to the Nigerian priest’s, Ibhawa’s, hostile work environment claim under the NYS Human Rights Law. The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict state interference with employment decisions made by religious institutions.. The Court of Appeals clarified that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense in an employment discrimination action against a religious institution, not a jurisdictional bar to bringing the case:

Ibhawa filed an employment complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, claiming that the Diocese had engaged in discriminatory employment practices in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (see Executive Law art 15). Ibhawa alleged that he had experienced racial discrimination at the Diocese, including from an employee who directed a racial slur at him and a parishioner who made xenophobic remarks to him. He further alleged that the Diocesan officials to whom he reported the incidents declined to investigate them, questioned his decision to terminate the employee who had used a racial slur, and made “highly insulting and offensive” remarks about “foreign priests.” At a subsequent meeting, two Diocesan officials offered to buy Ibhawa a plane ticket to Nigeria and told him that the “Bishop could remove [his] faculties.” Shortly afterwards, the Diocese informed Ibhawa that his employment had been terminated and his priestly faculties removed, which meant that that he could not apply for a position as a priest in the Diocese. The Diocese eventually hired a white priest to replace him. Based on these assertions, Ibhawa alleged claims of hostile work environment and unlawful termination on the basis of race and national origin. He sought, among other remedies, compensatory and punitive damages. * * *

DHR’s order dismissing Ibhawa’s hostile work environment claim was affected by an error of law. After noting the parties’ agreement that Ibhawa was “a priest serving as the pastor (Parish Administrator) of a church,” DHR found that his complaint “comes under the ministerial exception (relative to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution).” On that basis, DHR concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Ibhawa’s claims. This determination was contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s express holding that the “exception operates as an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim, not a jurisdictional bar” … . Matter of Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” is grounded in the First Amendment and may restrict a state agency’s review of employment decisions made by religious institutions. The exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar, to a hostile work environment action brought by a priest against his employer.

 

, , , ,

“UNITED METHODIST CHURCH” IS NOT A JURAL ENTITY WHICH CAN BE SUED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the “United Methodist Church” is not a jural entity which can be sued. In this Child Victims Act proceeding, the complaint alleged plaintiff was abused by an employee of the defendants United Methodist Church General Conference … , United Methodist Church Northeastern Jurisdiction New York-Connecticut District, New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, United Methodist Church Long Island East District, Long Island East District of the New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, … United Methodist Church of Woodbury New York. [and the] United Methodist Church … . The complaint alleged … United Methodist Church “is a not-for profit religious association and/or organization conducting business in the State of New York and organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business located at c/o GFCA, 1 Music Circle North Nashville, Tennessee 37203.”

… [A]pplying neutral principles of law, we determine … the defendants established that United Methodist Church is not a jural entity with the capacity to be sued. Dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction is warranted where a named defendant is not a legal entity amenable to suit … . New York law recognizes that “[a]n action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer” of an “unincorporated association” “upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally” (General Associations Law § 13; see CPLR 1025 [“Two or more persons conducting a business as a partnership may sue or be sued in the partnership name, and actions may be brought by or against the president or treasurer of an unincorporated association on behalf of the association in accordance with the provisions of the general associations law”]). Although the term “unincorporated association” is not further defined by statute, New York courts have determined that “[i]t is only when a partnership has a President or a Treasurer that it is deemed an association within the meaning of” General Associations Law § 13 … . As such, “[a]n unincorporated association . . . has ‘no legal existence separate and apart from its individual members'” … .

* * * [W]e conclude that the defendants established that United Methodist Church … is a religious denomination with a single purpose—”to make disciples for Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world”—and not a jural entity amenable to suit as an unincorporated association. It is undisputed that United Methodist Church does not have a principal place of business, does not have its own offices or employees, and does not and cannot hold title to property, and there is no proof in the record that United Methodist Church has incorporated or held itself out as a jural entity in any other jurisdiction. Moreover, the defendants demonstrated at the hearing that United Methodist Church, as such, does not have any involvement in the staffing or the removal of clergy or staff at the local church level. Chestnut v United Methodist Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03726, Second Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Here the “United Methodist Church” was deemed a nonjural entity which cannot be sued in New York–criteria explained in depth.

 

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