§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Ming Tung, et al., Appellants,v.China Buddhist Association, et al., Respondents.

Brief

19 Cited authorities

  1. Jones v. Wolf

    443 U.S. 595 (1979)   Cited 677 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts may apply neutral principles of law to resolve church property disputes

  2. Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl

    80 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 424 times
    Relying on expressio unius, statutory language, and legislative history to foreclose expansion of listed damages remedies

  3. First Presbyt. v. United Presbyt

    62 N.Y.2d 110 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that local church property was not held in trust for the national church, where the local church charter was not amended to invoke a New York statute creating a trust relationship with the national church and the national church did not have trust language in its Book of Order before the dispute arose and indeed had rejected a proposed trust provision in the past

  4. Congregation Yetev v. Kahana

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9068 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 45 times

    No. 142. Argued October 16, 2007. Decided November 20, 2007. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 11, 2006. The Appellate Division affirmed so much of an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Melvin S. Barasch, J.; op 5 Misc 3d 1023[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51515[U]), as had dismissed the petition in a proceeding pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 618 to determine the

  5. Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl

    179 A.D.2d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that compensatory but not punitive damages are available under SHRL

  6. Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Ass'n

    124 A.D.3d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses

    110149/11, 11572 11-13-2014 In re MING TUNG, et al., Petitioners–Respondents, v. CHINA BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION, et al., Respondents–Appellants. Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld, Jericho (Joseph Milano of counsel); Todd L. Platek, Flushing; and Benjamin L. Herzweig, Patchogue, for appellants. Alexander P. Kelly, Brooklyn, for respondents. GISCHE, J. Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld, Jericho (Joseph Milano of counsel); Todd L. Platek, Flushing; and Benjamin L. Herzweig, Patchogue, for appellants

  7. Holy Spirit v. Tax Comm

    55 N.Y.2d 512 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 57 times

    Argued March 30, 1982 Decided May 6, 1982 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department. Laurence H. Tribe, of the Massachusetts Bar, admitted pro hac vice, for appellant. Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel ( Edith I. Spivack, Rochelle M. Corson and Russell D. Scott of counsel), for respondent. Herbert Teitelbaum and Sanford Jay Rosen, Robin B. Johansen and Sarah E. Kurtz, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, for National Council of

  8. Venigalla v. Nori

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5956 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 13 times

    No. 113. Argued May 28, 2008. Decided July 1, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered June 19, 2007. The Appellate Division, among other things, affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joseph G. Golia, J.), which had approved the report of a referee and declared certain named individuals to be the duly elected trustees of the Hindu Temple Society of North America.

  9. Watson v. Jones

    80 U.S. 679 (1871)   Cited 361 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts may not decide purely ecclesiastical questions in a case involving a property dispute between a Presbyterian organization and local churches of the organization

  10. Islamic Center of Harrison v. Islamic Sci

    262 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 17 times

    Argued April 22, 1999 June 7, 1999 In an action, inter alia, for the removal of the individual defendants as the directors and trustees of the defendant religious corporations, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered June 1, 1998, which, inter alia, directed a reorganizational meeting of the defendant Islamic Cultural Center of New York, Inc., for the purpose of electing a new Board of Trustees, and directed that a Referee be appointed to