- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Presbytery of Long Is. v. Central Presbyt. Church
Presbytery of Long Is. v Central Presbyt. Church
2026 NY Slip Op 04332 July 8, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Presbytery of Long Island, respondent,
v
Central Presbyterian Church, appellant (and a third-party action).
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on July 8, 2026
2021-04361, (Index No. 618234/19)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Carl J. Landicino
Laurence L. Love, JJ.
Farrell Fritz P.C., Uniondale, NY (John R. Morken of counsel), for appellant. Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, New York, NY (Joseph Milano of counsel), for respondent. [*1]
DECISION & ORDER In an action, inter alia, for declaratory and injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martha L. Luft, J.), dated June 4, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, declaring that the subject property is not held in trust for the plaintiff, and on its counterclaims to quiet title and, upon searching the record, awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the subject property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing the defendant's counterclaims to quiet title.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the subject property is held in trust for the plaintiff.
In 1864 and 1888, the defendant, Central Presbyterian Church (hereinafter Central), acquired adjacent parcels, known together as 240 Main Street, in Huntington (hereinafter the 240 Main Street property). In 1980, the plaintiff, Presbytery of Long Island, voted at a meeting to concur with a proposal to amend the constitution of the United Presbyterian Church USA (hereinafter UPCUSA) to provide that property owned by congregations shall be held in trust for the use and benefit of the UPCUSA. Central's pastor and two of its Elder Commissioners attended the 1980 meeting. In 1983, UPCUSA and its southern counterpart merged to form the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (hereinafter PCUSA). In 2013, Central declared its intention to separate from the PCUSA. In 2016, the plaintiff unanimously concurred with Central's request to transfer Central's pastor, ruling elders, deacons, and church members to Central's new denomination. On April 24, 2016, Central voted "by near unanimous vote" to accept dismissal from the PCUSA and to join another denomination. The plaintiff and Central were unable to agree as to the disposition of Central's property, but Central took the position that "[n]either Central's property rights nor any claimed by the PCUSA are prejudiced by th[e] departure."
In September 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff. Central interposed an [*2]answer asserting, among other things, counterclaims to quiet title to the 240 Main Street property and to Central's manse. In opposition to the plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Central's counterclaims, Central cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, declaring that the 240 Main Street property is not held in trust for the plaintiff, and on its counterclaims to quiet title. In an order dated June 3, 2021, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied Central's cross-motion and, upon searching the record, awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing Central's counterclaims to quiet title. Central appeals.
New York applies "the neutral principles of law approach to church property disputes set forth by the United States
1
Supreme Court in Jones v Wolf (443 US 595)" (Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v Harnish, 11 NY3d 340, 350).
"Application of the neutral principles doctrine requires the court to focus 'on the language of the deeds, the terms of the local church charter, the State statutes governing the holding of church property, and the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property. The court must determine from them whether there is any basis for a trust or similar restriction in favor of the general church, taking special care to scrutinize the documents in purely secular terms and not to rely on religious precepts in determining whether they indicate that the parties have intended to create a trust or restriction'" (id. at 350-351, quoting First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 122). "Under the neutral-principles approach, the outcome of a church property dispute is not foreordained" (Jones v Wolf, 443 US at 606).
"[T]he constitution of a hierarchical church can be crafted to recite an express trust in its favor concerning the ownership and control of local church property" (Episcopal Diocese of Long Is. v St. Matthias Nondenominational Ministries, Inc., 157 AD3d 769, 770), but "even though members of a local group belong to a hierarchical church, they may withdraw from the church and claim title to real and personal property, provided they have not previously ceded the property to the denominational church" (First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d at 120).
Pursuant to Religious Corporations Law article four, the trustees of an incorporated Presbyterian church in connection with the General Assembly of PCUSA (see id. § 60) are required to administer the congregation's property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution (see id. § 69[3]). The PCUSA Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ll property held by or for a congregation . . . is held in trust . . . for the use and benefit of the [PCUSA]" and, "[w]henever property of, or held for, a congregation of the [PCUSA] ceases to be used by that congregation as a congregation of the [PCUSA] in accordance with this Constitution, such property shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery."
Here, in support of its cross-motion, Central failed to establish, prima facie, that the 240 Main Street property is not held in trust for the plaintiff (see id.; Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church [U.S.A.] v Trustees of First Presbyt. Church & Congregation of Ridgeberry, 72 AD3d 78, 93). Contrary to Central's contentions, applying article four of the Religious Corporations Law to determine whether the plaintiff obtained an interest in Central's property prior to Central's dismissal from the PCUSA did not unconstitutionally prefer one religious group over another (see Religious Corporations Law § 60; cf. Grumet v Cuomo, 90 NY2d 57, 69), and the provision of the PCUSA Constitution that
"ecclesiastical discipline" is "not attended with any civil effects" does not preclude civil enforcement of the provisions of the PCUSA Constitution concerning the ownership and control of church property (see First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d at 122). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Central's cross-motion.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court, upon searching the record, properly awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on its first cause of action, for a judgment declaring that the 240 Main Street property is held in trust for the plaintiff, and dismissing Central's counterclaims to quiet title. So long as Central was a Presbyterian church in connection with the PCUSA, Central's trustees were required to administer Central's property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution (see Religious [*3]Corporations Law §§ 60, 69[3]), and the PCUSA Constitution expressly places the property of a congregation in a trust and empowers the respective presbytery to determine the disposition of such property in the event a congregation ceases to use the property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution. Moreover, the plaintiff established that Central had notice and knowledge of the claimed trust in 1980 and that Central subsequently conducted its affairs in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution, including by demanding the plaintiff "take corrective action" after another congregation "ordained two homosexuals" in 1994, by seeking the plaintiff's approval to sell a manse in 1996, and by seeking the plaintiff's approval before leaving the denomination (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church [U.S.A.] v Trustees of First Presbyt. Church & Congregation of Ridgeberry, 72 AD3d at 96-98). Since this is, in part, a declaratory judgment action, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment, inter alia, declaring that the 240 Main Street Property is held in trust for the plaintiff (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334).
BARROS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
2
Alert