Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Ass'n, 48 N.E.3d 497 (N.Y. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Ass'n, 48 N.E.3d 497 (N.Y. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v. Sukharevskaya (nyappdiv, 2018-11-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v. Sukharevskaya
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
"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" ( Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana , 9 NY3d 282, 286 ; see Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn. , 124 AD3d 13, 18 , affd 26 NY3d 1152 ).
discussed Cited "see" Bronx Islamic Socy., Inc. v. Ally
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: accord · confidence high
The motion court correctly found that the underlying membership dispute is not capable of judicial resolution, i.e., that it cannot be "decided solely upon the application of neutral principles of . . . law, without reference to any religious principle" ( Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana , 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007]; accord Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn. , 124 AD3d 13, 18 [1st Dept 2014], affd 26 NY3d 1152 [2016], cert denied ___ US ___, 137 S Ct 628 [2017]).
discussed Cited "see" Queens Branch of the Bhuvaneshwar Mandir, Inc. v. Sherman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
In applying neutral principles of law, “courts may rely upon internal documents, such as a congregation’s bylaws, but only if those documents do not require interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrine” (id.; see Matter of Ming Tung v China Buddhist Assn., 124 AD3d 13, 20 [2014], affd 26 NY3d 1152 [2016]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Ming Tung
v.
China Buddhist Association
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 18, 2016.
48 N.E.3d 497
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Alexander Palmer Kelly, New York City, for appellants., Capell Barnett Matalón & Schoenfeld LLP, New York City CJoseph Milano of counsel), for respondents.
Abdus, Difiore, Fahey, Garcia, Pigott, Rivera, Salaam, Stein.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs, for the reasons stated by Justice Judith J. Gische at the Appellate Division, First Department (124 AD3d 13 [2014]), and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia.