From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sillah v. Tanvir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 2005
18 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

6005.

May 3, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered March 11, 2004, which granted petitioners' application pursuant to CPLR 4403 and confirmed the referee's report, dated January 6, 2003, finding that petitioners were duly elected as trustees of the Islamic Falah of America, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ., concur.


The special meeting was properly noticed in accordance with Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 603 (c). The meeting was properly noticed; although it was held on a rescheduled date, the hearing evidence showed that that date was well publicized, the meeting was attended by over 200 congregants and there is no evidence that a member was prevented from voting due to lack of notice ( cf. Matter of Kaminsky, 251 App Div 132, 137-139, affd 277 NY 524). The individuals who voted at the meeting were members of the corporation within the meaning of Religious Corporations Law § 195, the applicability of which is mandated by Religious Corporations Law § 2-b (1) (a). Petitioners presented extensive evidence that those who attended the meeting and voted were regular worshipers who contributed financially to the mosque.


Summaries of

Sillah v. Tanvir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 3, 2005
18 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Sillah v. Tanvir

Case Details

Full title:DAGGANA SILLAH et al., Respondents, v. SHAHID TANVIR, Appellant

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

Date published: May 3, 2005

Citations

18 A.D.3d 223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
794 N.Y.S.2d 348

Citing Cases

Congregation Yetev v. Kahana

bs, LLP, Yonkers ( Jeffrey D. Buss of counsel), and Thacher Proffitt Wood LLP, White Plains ( Kevin J.…

Temple-Ashram v. Satyanandji

In this regard, we also note that the issue does not "require [] intrusion into constitutionally protected…