August 24, 2012
Nyack, NY: New York Supreme Court dismisses lawsuit against Holy Virgin Protection Church

On Wednesday, August 22, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed a lawsuit against Holy Virgin Protection Church in Nyack, NY, issued by former parishioner Oleg Rodzianko. The main intention of the lawsuit was to "restrain the Parish of the Russian Orthodox Holy Virgin Protection Church from taking any further steps to merge its parish with the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church." This complaint was received by parish rector Archpriest George Larin on April 16, Bright Monday.

The trial was held on May 11, 2012, and three months later the decision of the New York Supreme Court ‒ supporting the parish and dismissing the lawsuit ‒ was handed down.

As reported by the official parish website, the rector, clergy, and parishioners of Holy Virgin Protection Church are grateful to everyone who supported them both financially and in prayer.

The highlights of the court decision are available below:

1) Plaintiff (O. Rodzianko) brings action to enjoin the defendant, a Russian Orthodox Church, from engaging in a course of conduct he believes is in violation of the certificate of incorporation of the defendant church. The defendant, on it's part, cross move to dismiss on a number of basis, including the lack of standing of the plaintiff to maintain this action and lack of subject jurisdiction.

2) The crux of the plaintiff's case is the argument that the defendant has or is about to violate Par. 2 of it's certificate of incorporation, which states, in pertinent part: "...the corporation shall maintain no relations whatsoever with any ecclesiastical officers or organizations within the boundaries of or subject to the jurisdiction of the USSR, or any of its satellite states, so long as the said Union, or any of its satellite states, are ruled by Communistic authorities"... It is the position of the plaintiff that based upon certain Acts of Canonical Communion, passed in 2007 by a council of Church leaders, that the Russian Orthodox Church based in Russia is seeking to "take over" the Russian Orthodox Churches in America, including the defendant Church. The plaintiff avers that his church has already taken steps, both in their prayer service and otherwise, to effectuate this "take over". While the3 court has no doubt as to the sincerity of the plaintiff, nor the genuineness of his beliefs, his allegations are unsupported by anything other than his own conclusions. There is no support for his position from church leaders or quite frankly, any other parishioners.

3) As indicated above, the defendant not only opposes the application, but moves to dismiss. It claims that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, since the that the court, in order to render a decision herein, would have to resolve religious questions, which is not empowered to do. The defendant relies heavily on Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 N.Y. 3d 282, wherein the Court of Appeals clearly stated:

"The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs. Civil disputes involving religious parties or institutions may be adjudicated (settled judicially) without offending the 1st Amendment as long as neutral principles of law are the basis for their resolution".

4) Here, in the court's opinion, to determine whether or not the defendant has violated it's certificate of incorporation would require this court to interpret church doctrine, and to interpret the various Acts propounded by the church hierarchy. Therefore, the court cannot make such a determination, and lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter.

5) Based on the above, the court need not consider any other issues raised by the defendant. The application for an injunction is denied. The cross motion to dismiss is granted, and the complaint is hereby dismissed. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: New City, New York, August 22, 2012
Judge: Robert M. Berliner, J.S.C.

Media Office of the Eastern American Diocese