Temple Beth-El of Manhattan Beach

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second DepartmentDec 19, 1994
210 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
210 A.D.2d 374620 N.Y.S.2d 113

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Ass'n

    …Furthermore, Religious Corporations Law § 194 specifies how notice of a meeting must be given, and failing to…

  • Holler v. Goldberg

    …The first source for such examination, the bylaws of the Synagogue, contains no mention of proxy voting. It…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

December 19, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's contract as rabbi of the defendant Temple Beth-El of Manhattan Beach was not renewed by Temple members at a special meeting held on March 24, 1993. We reject the plaintiff's contention that the provisions of Religious Corporations Law, article 10, §§ 194, 195 were applicable to that meeting. Since the defendant's constitution and by-laws specifically provided for the manner in which special meetings were to be called and held, the provisions of Religious Corporations Law article 10 do not apply, and the failure to renew the plaintiff's contract can only be judged in terms of whether the defendant's constitution and by-laws were complied with (see, Religious Corporations Law § 25; cf., Kupperman v Congregation Nusach Sefard, 39 Misc.2d 107). The record reveals that the meeting of March 24, 1993, was called and held in accordance with the defendant's constitution and by-laws. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.