In a much-watched case, yesterday a New York state appellate court dismissed a suit between two factions of the Orthodox-Jewish Satmar Chasidic community. The two sons of recently deceased grand rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum are engaged in a long-running battle for control over millions of dollars of property belonging to the 100,000 member group. This piece of the dispute involved the question of who was the properly elected president of the Satmar's congregational board in Williamsburg, and whether the grand rebbe had the authority to remove a president of the congregation. (See prior postings, 1, 2.) According to a report in today's New York Sun, the appellate court sitting in Brooklyn ruled that "Resolution of the parties' dispute would necessarily involve impermissible inquiries into religious doctrine and the congregation's membership requirements."
A dissent by Judge Robert Spolzino argued that "the by-laws of the congregation here provide the neutral principles of law upon which the authority of the grand rebbe with regard to the corporate governance of the congregation can be determined."
This decision continues the current balance of power in the Satmar community, with the Williamsburg group led by Rabbi Zalmen and the Kiryas Joel faction led by Rabbi Aaron.
UPDATE: Here is the full opinion in In re Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., v. Kahana, (App. Div., 2nd Dept., July 11, 2006). There was a companion decision in Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc. v. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc., (App. Div., 2nd Dept., July 11, 2006), that challenged the transfer of a 50% interest in the Williamsburgh congregation's cemetery to the Kiryas Joel congregation. The court held: "The transfer ... is ... bound with this leadership dispute and it is clear that, at least in part, it was made to advance the interests of one of the competing Satmar factions and not to advance religious or charitable objects generally. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the transfer was in the best interests of the Brooklyn Congregation and accordingly we decline to exercise our discretion to approve it, thereby restoring the status quo ante." Judge Spolzino concurred in the result. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]
