ministerial error in New York

2025Plaintiffs' claims for hostile work environment were improperly dismissed under the ministerial exception, which precludes some employment claims against religious institutions on First Amendment grounds ( see Our Lady of Guadalupe School v Morrissey-Berru , 591 US 732, 756 [2020]; see also Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC , 565 US 171, 181 [2012]).

2025Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct ( see Hosanna-Tabor , 565 US at 196). [FN1] Since Hosanna-Tabor , federal courts have examined the issue before us, that is, the applicability of the ministerial exception to hostile work environment claims.

2013Finally, as the rate of interest was not argued by the parties or decided by the court, and the rate is mandated by statute, this ministerial error may be corrected even after the underlying substantive appellate process is complete (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995]).

2013Finally, as the rate of interest was not argued by the parties or decided by the court, and the rate is mandated by statute, this ministerial error may be corrected even after the underlying substantive appellate process is complete (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995]).

2014The County Clerk should have retained the papers and provided a date-stamped copy of them to Higgins when they were delivered (see CPLR 304 [c]), but the failure to do so constituted nothing more than a ministerial error in the method of filing that may be overlooked pursuant to CPLR 2001 (see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 NY3d 323, 327-328 [2011]).

2014The County Clerk should have retained the papers and provided a date-stamped copy of them to Higgins when they were delivered (see CPLR 304 [c]), but the failure to do so constituted nothing more than a ministerial error in the method of filing that may be overlooked pursuant to CPLR 2001 (see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 NY3d 323, 327-328 [2011]).

2013Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]).

2011CPLR 5019 (a) provides a court with the discretion to correct a technical defect or a ministerial error, and may not be employed as a vehicle to alter the substantive rights of a party (see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Rotunno v Gruhill Constr.

2025Church , 375 F3d 951, 965 [9th Cir 2004] [where a Presbyterian minister brought a claim for hostile work environment against her employer church, the court held that in the absence of a religious justification, the hostile work environment claim "survives the ministerial exception" defense raised in defendant's motion to dismiss]; cf. Skrzypczak v Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa , 611 F3d 1238, 1246 [10th Cir 2010], cert denied 565 US 1155 [2012] [holding that the ministerial exception bars hostile work environment claims because "any Title VII action brought against a church by one of its min

2025As the 9th Circuit observed, there is no First Amendment reason to permit the ministerial exception to shield a religious institution from its "obligation to protect its employees from harassment when extending such protection would not contravene the Church's doctrinal prerogatives or trench upon its protected ministerial decisions" ( Elvig , 375 F3d at 964).

2013Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]).

2013Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]).

2013Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]).

2013Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]; see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879, 880-881 [1995]; Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY 323, 327 [1919]; Greenstein v Greenstein, 65 AD3d 607, 608 [2009]).

2019In the court's view, although the 1981 easement had been properly recorded and indexed upon its creation, a ministerial error was subsequently committed when the City Register "fail[ed] to include the Declaration [of the 1981 easement] in the Register's records for the newly created Lot 9 at the time of the subdivision [of Lot 30] in 1984." The court then framed the issue presented as whether "an instrument that is duly recorded and properly entered on the Register's records against the appropriate block and lot, at the time of recording, can be defeated by a ministerial error committed years

2019In the court's view, although the 1981 easement had been properly recorded and indexed upon its creation, a ministerial error was subsequently committed when the City Register "fail[ed] to include the Declaration [of the 1981 easement] in the Register's records for the newly created Lot 9 at the time of the subdivision [of Lot 30] in 1984." The court then framed the issue presented as whether "an instrument that is duly recorded and properly entered on the Register's records against the appropriate block and lot, at the time of recording, can be defeated by a ministerial error committed years

2016These statutes are routinely enforced by our courts and more recently, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reaffirmed the underlying policy of the Court in an election law case where the Court found that the Supreme Court properly amended a caption to designate an individual, who originally was denominated respondent, as petitioner on the grounds that “[d] efects, mistakes, and irregularities in pleadings are to be ignored by the court absent a showing of prejudice.” (Matter of MacKay v Johnson, 54 AD3d 428, 430 [2008]; Hoot Group, Inc. v Coplan, 9 AD3d 448 [2004] [finding in a case whe

2004“Defects, mistakes, and irregularities in pleadings are to be ignored by the court absent a showing of prejudice” (First Wis. Trust Co. v Hakimian, 237 AD2d 249 [1997]; see CPLR 104, 2001, 2101 [f]; 3025 [c]; 3026).

2013Co., 178 AD2d 878, 880 , lv denied 79 NY2d 758 ; Grant v Endy, 167 AD2d 807, 807-808 ; McStocker, 160 AD2d at 980-981 ; Labov v City of New York, 154 AD2d 348, 348-349 ; see also Laylon v Shaver, 187 AD2d 983, 984-985 ).

1991In any event, even if the issue was preserved we would not rule in plaintiffs favor since it has generally been held that a misunderstanding related to what monetary amount is referenced by "total damages” on the jury verdict is not a ministerial error for which jury affidavits may be considered (see, supra; McStocker v Kolment, 160 AD2d 980, 981 ; Labov v City of New York, 154 AD2d 348 ).

2013Corp. ( 265 AD2d 457 , lv denied 95 NY2d 752 ) sets forth the following exceptions to the general rule that, unless they have been subjected to outside influence, jurors may not impeach their own verdict: “First, juror testimony may be used in certain rare instances to correct a ministerial error in reporting the verdict (see[] Grant v Endy, 167 AD2d 807 ; Russo v Jess R.

2013Corp. ( 265 AD2d 457 [1999], lv denied 95 NY2d 752 [2000]) sets forth the following exceptions to the general rule that, unless they have been subjected to outside influence, jurors may not impeach their own verdict: “First, juror testimony may be used in certain rare instances to correct a ministerial error in reporting the verdict (see[ ] Grant v Endy, 167 AD2d 807 ; Russo v Jess R.

2007Corp., 262 AD2d 2, 4 [1st Dept 1999]; see also Matter of Quiroz v City of New York, 154 AD2d 315, 316 [1989].) In Lomax , we also looked at the issue of amending notices of claim.

1999The applicable statute should be applied flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the one hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error (Matter of Quiroz v City of New York, 154 AD2d 315, 316 ).

1996Hampton v Omabuild USA No. 1, 215 AD2d 746, 748 ; People v Morgan, 162 AD2d 723 ; People v Nelson, 144 AD2d 714, 716 , lv denied 73 NY2d 894 ; People v Davis, 93 AD2d 970, 971 ).

1990Similarly, the 14-day delay in returning the warrant did not justify suppression since "the requirement that the warrant be returned in a timely manner is a ministerial duty, noncompliance with which cannot be used to invalidate an otherwise valid warrant” (People v Hernandez, 131 AD2d 509 ; see also, People v Nelson, 144 AD2d 714, 716 ; People v Frange, 109 AD2d 802 ).

2026See Brown , 28 NY3d at 403—04.

2026See Brown , 28 NY3d at 403—04.

2025Church , 375 F3d 951, 965 [9th Cir 2004] [where a Presbyterian minister brought a claim for hostile work environment against her employer church, the court held that in the absence of a religious justification, the hostile work environment claim "survives the ministerial exception" defense raised in defendant's motion to dismiss]; cf. Skrzypczak v Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa , 611 F3d 1238, 1246 [10th Cir 2010], cert denied 565 US 1155 [2012] [holding that the ministerial exception bars hostile work environment claims because "any Title VII action brought against a church by one of its min

2025Church , 375 F3d 951, 965 [9th Cir 2004] [where a Presbyterian minister brought a claim for hostile work environment against her employer church, the court held that in the absence of a religious justification, the hostile work environment claim "survives the ministerial exception" defense raised in defendant's motion to dismiss]; cf. Skrzypczak v Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa , 611 F3d 1238, 1246 [10th Cir 2010], cert denied 565 US 1155 [2012] [holding that the ministerial exception bars hostile work environment claims because "any Title VII action brought against a church by one of its min

2025Plaintiffs abandoned their retaliation claim because, despite mentioning it in the fact section of their opening brief, the arguments raised with respect to the claim appeared only in their reply brief ( see Shaw v Bluepers Family Billiards , 94 AD3d 858, 860 [2d Dept 2012]).

2025Plaintiffs abandoned their retaliation claim because, despite mentioning it in the fact section of their opening brief, the arguments raised with respect to the claim appeared only in their reply brief ( see Shaw v Bluepers Family Billiards , 94 AD3d 858, 860 [2d Dept 2012]).

2025McMahon v World Vision Inc. , 147 F4th 959, 966 [9th Cir 2025] [extending ministerial exception beyond traditional domain of clergy and teachers to cover customer service representatives who perform "key religious functions central to (the organization's) mission"]; Billard v Charlotte Catholic High Sch. , 101 F4th 316, 333 [4th Cir 2024] [holding that a high school English and drama teacher, who substituted as a religion teacher approximately three times, qualified as a minister for purposes of the exception]; Palmer v Liberty Univ. , Inc. , 72 F4th 52, 69 [4th Cir 2023], cert denied sub nom.

2025McMahon v World Vision Inc. , 147 F4th 959, 966 [9th Cir 2025] [extending ministerial exception beyond traditional domain of clergy and teachers to cover customer service representatives who perform "key religious functions central to (the organization's) mission"]; Billard v Charlotte Catholic High Sch. , 101 F4th 316, 333 [4th Cir 2024] [holding that a high school English and drama teacher, who substituted as a religion teacher approximately three times, qualified as a minister for purposes of the exception]; Palmer v Liberty Univ. , Inc. , 72 F4th 52, 69 [4th Cir 2023], cert denied sub nom.

2025The comments made by Father Reilly and defendant Gregory Manos about Boliak are not subject to the ministerial exception because they do not implicate matters of religious doctrine and practice ( see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. and Can. , 1 AD3d 180, 182 [1st Dept 2003], appeal dismissed , 2 NY3d 758 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]; see also Glazier v Harris , 159 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2018]).

2025The comments made by Father Reilly and defendant Gregory Manos about Boliak are not subject to the ministerial exception because they do not implicate matters of religious doctrine and practice ( see Sieger v Union of Orthodox Rabbis of U.S. and Can. , 1 AD3d 180, 182 [1st Dept 2003], appeal dismissed , 2 NY3d 758 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]; see also Glazier v Harris , 159 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2018]).

2025McMahon v World Vision Inc. , 147 F4th 959, 966 [9th Cir 2025] [extending ministerial exception beyond traditional domain of clergy and teachers to cover customer service representatives who perform "key religious functions central to (the organization's) mission"]; Billard v Charlotte Catholic High Sch. , 101 F4th 316, 333 [4th Cir 2024] [holding that a high school English and drama teacher, who substituted as a religion teacher approximately three times, qualified as a minister for purposes of the exception]; Palmer v Liberty Univ. , Inc. , 72 F4th 52, 69 [4th Cir 2023], cert denied sub nom.

2025McMahon v World Vision Inc. , 147 F4th 959, 966 [9th Cir 2025] [extending ministerial exception beyond traditional domain of clergy and teachers to cover customer service representatives who perform "key religious functions central to (the organization's) mission"]; Billard v Charlotte Catholic High Sch. , 101 F4th 316, 333 [4th Cir 2024] [holding that a high school English and drama teacher, who substituted as a religion teacher approximately three times, qualified as a minister for purposes of the exception]; Palmer v Liberty Univ. , Inc. , 72 F4th 52, 69 [4th Cir 2023], cert denied sub nom.

2025Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, whether the ministerial exception applies is generally a fact-intensive determination, not readily capable of resolution on a motion to dismiss (majority op at 8; see also Guadalupe , 591 US at 758 ["call(ing) on courts to take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception"]; Fratello v Archdiocese of New York , 863 F3d 190, 206-210 [2d Cir 2017] [engaging in a fact-intensive, circumstance-specific analysis under Hosanna-Tabor ]).

2025Moreover, as the majority acknowledges, whether the ministerial exception applies is generally a fact-intensive determination, not readily capable of resolution on a motion to dismiss (majority op at 8; see also Guadalupe , 591 US at 758 ["call(ing) on courts to take all relevant circumstances into account and to determine whether each particular position implicated the fundamental purpose of the exception"]; Fratello v Archdiocese of New York , 863 F3d 190, 206-210 [2d Cir 2017] [engaging in a fact-intensive, circumstance-specific analysis under Hosanna-Tabor ]).

2024Hosanna-Tabor explained that because the question presented by the ministerial exception "is whether the allegations the plaintiff makes entitle him to relief, not whether the court has power to hear the case," it is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar ( id. [internal quotation marks and alterations omitted]; compare Hunt v Hunt , 72 NY 217, 229 [1878] [explaining that subject matter jurisdiction is a "power to adjudge concerning the general question involved" in a dispute, "and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case"], with Whitlatch v Fid.