Short Form Order

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY

Present:                         HONORABLE THOMAS V. POLIZZI IA Part 14
Justice

_____________________________
                            x
                                      Index
VASILIOS KAPSALIS                      Number 1014 1999

           - against -                 Motion
                                      Date August 17, 1999

THE GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF
NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

                            x           Motion Cal. Number 3

The following papers numbered 1 to 14 read on this motion by the defendant for an order, inter alia, dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

                                            Papers
                                            Numbered

Notice of Motion - Affidavits - Exhibits ......... 1 - 5
Answering Affidavits - Exhibits .................. 6 - 9
Reply Affidavits ................................. 10 - 14

Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that the motion is denied. (See the accompanying memorandum.)

Dated: November 4, 1999 ______________________________

J.S.C.

MEMORANDUM

SUPREME COURT : QUEENS COUNTY
IA PART 14

________________________
                                             X
VASILIOS KAPSALIS                                                               INDEX NO. 1014/99

                         - against -                                                            BY: POLIZZI, J.

THE GREEK ORTHODOX ARCHDIOCESE OF                      DATED: NOVEMBER 4, 1999
NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

                                                    X

Defendant Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America has moved for an order, inter alia, dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The defendant is a corporation organized pursuant to the New York State Religious Corporation Law. Plaintiff Vasilios Kapsalis, age 65, is a priest ordained by the defendant, and he has served as a priest for thirty-three years. The plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of the defendant, but the latter contends that Saint Barbara Parish employed him. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has a policy of terminating its employees only for cause and of continuing their pay and benefits until reassignment if terminated without cause. Article III, Section 2 of the defendant's Special Regulations and Uniform Parish Regulations provides in relevant part: "In the event that a priest is removed without cause *** and has not arbitrarily refused reassignment, the Archdiocese will provide for maintenance of his current remuneration and benefits until he is reassigned provided he does not refuse reassignment." On or about February 25, 1995, Helen Tserotas, a parishioner, accused the plaintiff of sexual misconduct, but the plaintiff alleges that a church tribunal exonerated him several months later. On March 21, 1996, Helen Tserotas began an action in the New York State Supreme Court, County of Queens, based on sexual misconduct against the plaintiff herein and defendant herein. (Tserotas v Kapsalis, Index No. 006217/96.) (The Appellate Division, Second Department, eventually dismissed the action against the plaintiff herein on Statute of Limitations grounds.) By letter dated March 26, 1996, the Reverend Nicholas C. Triantafilou, the Chancellor of the Archdiocese, suspended the plaintiff as a priest and also suspended him from his assignment at Saint Barbara's Church. On or about January 15, 1999, after the defendant refused to provide the plaintiff with pay and benefits, he brought this action for breach of contract against the Archdiocese. On or about April 6, 1999, the defendant allegedly offered to reassign the plaintiff to a parish in Minnesota, but he declined the reassignment. The plaintiff alleges that he is contractually entitled to pay and benefits for the period March 26, 1999 to April 6, 1999.

That branch of the motion which is for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. It is true that civil courts are constitutionally prohibited from interfering in or resolving religious disputes. (First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v United Presbyterian Church in US, 62 NY2d 110.) The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving a church's monetary disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. (See, Jones v Wolf, 443 US 595.) In the case at bar, however, the dispute between the parties involves no consideration of doctrinal matters such as ritual, liturgy, and principles of faith. (See, Jones v Wolf, supra.) This case "can be decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of contract law without reference to any religious principles." (Avitzur v Avitzur, 58 NY2d 108, 114.) A contract between a minister and his church may be enforced in civil court when there is no excessive entanglement with religious matters. (See, Minker v Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F2d 1354.) The plaintiff herein is seeking to enforce only monetary rights allegedly flowing from a contract.

That branch of the motion which is for an order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action is denied. The plaintiff's allegations, including those based on Article III, Section 2 of the defendant's Special Regulations and Uniform Parish Regulations, are sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract against the defendant.

That branch of the motion which is for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(10) dismissing this action for failure to join a necessary party is denied. Saint Barbara Parish is not a necessary party since the contractual dispute involved in this case does not concern the parish. The plaintiff can be accorded complete relief on his complaint in the absence of the parish. (See, Baker v Town of Roxbury, 220 AD2d 961.)

Short form order signed herewith.   

______________________________

J.S.C.