Earlier this month, a Brooklyn, New York trial court issued another decision in the long-running battle between two factions of the Chabad Lubavitch movement-- those who believe that the late grand Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, may be referred to publicly as the Messiah, and those who reject the messianist faction. A December 2007 trial court decision gave control of the movement's Crown Heights headquarters to the anti-messianist faction (Agudas Chasedei Chabad and Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch), allowing them to eject the other faction which maintained a congregation (known as Congregation Lubavitch, Inc.) in the building's basement. (See prior posting.) Apparently this decision has been appealed.
As part of the long running case, in 2006 the court issued an order (full text) barring various individuals in the messianist faction from defacing, removing or interfering with a plaque commemorating the Rebbe's death that had been placed on the outer wall of Chabad's headquarters building. The messianists objected to the plaque because it referred to the Rebbe using a Hebrew acronym for "of blessed memory," thus suggesting that he was dead. (See prior posting and this background.)
Now in Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Sharf, (NY Kings Co. Sup. Ct., Nov. 3, 2008), a New York trial court rejected an attempt by one of the parties to challenge the 2006 decision. In addition the court rejected an attempt by the messianists--Congregation Lubavitch, Inc. (CLI)-- to obtain access to a security plan that Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch (MLC) agreed to in accepting New York state homeland security funds. CLI also wanted the court to order the concealment of any security cameras and to ban recording of prayer services on the sabbath and holidays except for law enforcement purposes. Also, apparently still asserting their control of the basement synagogue, CLI wanted to ban MLC from access to interior video recordings and wanted other restrictions on access to recordings. The court, relying on the 2007 decision that MLC was the legitimate owner of the property, held that CLI had no basis to obtain these limitations. [Thanks to J.J. Landa for the lead.]
