דו ענטפערסט שלא מן הענין.
דער מציאות איז אז דער ריכטער שרייבט אז ר' דוד ראזענבערג איז באגאנגען פראוד.
דער מציאות איז דער פאוסט איגנארירט עס.
קוק אן די נייעס וויאזוי די רעספעקטירטע ניו יארק לאו דזשורנאל האט עס באשריבן:
Judge Nullifies Transfer of Upstate Summer Camp
Andrew Keshner
New York Law Journal
10-12-2011
A judge who says he was blindsided by a faction in a religious "schism" has nullified the conveyance of about 325 acres of campground in upstate Ulster County.
Supreme Court Justice James P. Gilpatric (See Profile) complained that he was not told before approving the transaction that it had been sought by one of two feuding factions within one congregation of the Satmar community of Hasidic Jews without the agreement of the other faction.
The original application was "the quintessence of non-disclosure, bordering on a fraudulent application before this court," Justice Gilpatric wrote in Matter of the Application of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar Inc., 5848-2010
Referring to the 2007 Court of Appeals decision in Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar v. Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, Justice Gilpatric noted, "Based on what is an obvious schism in this Congregation that has commanded the attention of no less that New York State Court of Appeals, the petitioner literally chose to ignore the serious conflict within the Congregation and assumed authority to act on behalf of all members, without any legally binding authority."
The property at issue contains a summer camp open to Satmar Hasidic children of all factions that is run by Congregation Machneh Rav Tov but had been in the name of Brooklyn-based Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar.
In December 2010, Justice Gilpatric approved an application by a group purporting to represent Congregation Yetev Lev for transfer of the property nunc pro tunc to Rav Tov.
But after the transfer, Berl Friedman, president of the "true" Yetev Lev, notified the court that the conveyors represented a rival faction within the congregation led by Jacob Kahan and had been acting without the entire group's authority. He asked the judge to nullify his earlier decision.
Attorneys for Rav Tov did not dispute the existence of an internal conflict at Yetev Lev. However, they contended that Mr. Friedman was "seeking to embroil this Court and the Attorney General into an intramural squabble within the Satmar Community," like the Court of Appeals had avoided in its 2007 ruling.
The state's Religious Corporation Law requires court approval of any sale of religious property. Here, the Attorney General's Office did not object to conveyance, but Assistant Attorney General G. Nicholas Garin said in court papers that he was never told the ownership of the land was in dispute. Had he known, he would have advised the court to notify both factions of the proposed conveyance. And he said he had no objection to unraveling the court's action.
Donald J. Kravet of Kravet & Vogel was co-counsel to the "true" Yetev Lev. Calling the decision "straightforward," he said in an interview that "the judge, when made aware what actually occurred, was disturbed and unwound the transactions as was appropriate."
Richard M. Mahon II, of Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram in Newburgh also represented Yetev Lev.
Benjamin Ostrer of Ostrer & Hoovler in Chester represented the Kahan faction that originally sought the conveyance, although he did not appear in that action.
Mr. Ostrer said that Rav Tov, when seeking to create a camp about 50 years ago, lacked sufficient assets to secure title. So it enlisted Congregation Yetev Lev, which put its name on the title but was only "the nominal owner."
He said he was disappointed by the ruling.
"We thought at worst the court should not have reached the issue of annulling the deed. …On the merits, the transfer was just," Mr. Ostrer said. He noted that Rav Tov has been the group running and maintaining the camp over the years. "But the judge appears to be offended by some of the machinations and it's certainly understandable," he said.
Marc Illish of the Law Office of B. Kogan in Brooklyn represented Rav Tov. He said that his client, as the "equitable owner" of the property, would appeal the decision and initiate a proceeding under Article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law for the determination of title.
In a statement, Mr. Illish insisted that notifying all factions of Yetev Lev was not a prerequisite to the transfer.
"In any event, the failure to give the notice pales by comparison to the fact that only Rav Tov invested the money and sweat into the camp sites for over 50 years, which was never disputed by any faction," he said. "Accordingly, the granting of the [original] petition was a just result."
@|Andrew Keshner can be contacted at [email protected]
