Rabbi Mordecai Tendler Case Update: Decision and Order Esformes v. Kehillat New Hempstead
Case of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler
Supreme Court Of The State Of New York
County of Rockland
Morris Esformes, Harry Grossman, Eileen Grossman, Jeffery Friedman, Netzana Friedman, Gabriel M.O Nacca, Osnat Mizrachy Nacca, Joyce Simon, Jack Schranz, Sheila Schranz, Simon Zarour,
Lori Zarour, All Suing Derivatively on Behalf of Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., AKA Kehillat New Hempstead, The Rav Aron Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,
Plaintiffs,
Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., AKA Kehillat New Hempstead, The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,
Nominal Defendant.
Liebowitz, J.
The following documents numbered 1 to 35 were read in connection with the motion of plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the defendant Board of Directors and Trustees from taking any action, except in the ordinary course of business; (2) enjoining the defendants from removing, directing or requiring removal of Rabbi Tendler's belongings from the Rabbi's study; (3) enjoining the defendants from taking any action in furtherance of identifying and hiring a new Rabbi, including the formation and activities of a search committee; (4) enjoining the defendants from taking any action in furtherance of changing the name of the Congregation and/or Synagogue; and (5) reinstating Rabbi Tendler as Rabbi pursuant to the contract
Order to show Cause, Affidavits and Supporting Pagers 1-12
Opposing Affidavits and Supporting Papers 13-28
Reply Affidavits and Supporting Papers 29-35
Upon a review of the voluminous papers submitted in support and in opposition to the motion, and after hearing extensive oral argument from both sides, the Court denies plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunctions in all respects. Plaintiffs' application cannot be decided by applying neutral principles of law, and therefore would require impermissible inquiries into the operation of the Congregation and religious doctrine. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana. 820 N.Y.S. 2d 62, 31 A.D.3d 541 (2nd Dept., 2006).
On the basis of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied in all respects.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court
Dated: New City, New York
November 22, 2006
Richard B. Liebowitz
Supreme Court Justice
Paul Savad & Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
55 Old Turnpike Rd - Suite 209
Nanuet, New York 10954
Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP
Attorney for Defendants
Fred Brinn, Seymour Ratner, Bruce Minsky, Schlomo Pomerantz, Jerrold Wolfset and David Resnik, Individually, and as Directors and Trustees of Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc.
100 Jericho Quadrangle
Stuite 214
Jericho, New York 11753
Supreme Court Of The State Of New York
County of Rockland
Morris Esformes, Harry Grossman, Eileen Grossman, Jeffery Friedman, Netzana Friedman, Gabriel M.O Nacca, Osnat Mizrachy Nacca, Joyce Simon, Jack Schranz, Sheila Schranz, Simon Zarour,
Lori Zarour, All Suing Derivatively on Behalf of Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., AKA Kehillat New Hempstead, The Rav Aron Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
Fred Brinn, Seymour Ratner, Bruce Minsky, Schlomo Pomeranz, Jerrold Wolfset, and David Resnick, Individually, and the Board of Directors and Trustees of Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., AKA Kehillat New Hempstead, The Rav Arron Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,
Defendant,
Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc., AKA Kehillat New Hempstead, The Rav Aron Jofen Community Synagogue,
Nominal Defendant.
Liebowitz, J.
The following documents numbered 1 to 35 were read in connection with the motion of plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction (1) enjoining the defendant Board of Directors and Trustees from taking any action, except in the ordinary course of business; (2) enjoining the defendants from removing, directing or requiring removal of Rabbi Tendler's belongings from the Rabbi's study; (3) enjoining the defendants from taking any action in furtherance of identifying and hiring a new Rabbi, including the formation and activities of a search committee; (4) enjoining the defendants from taking any action in furtherance of changing the name of the Congregation and/or Synagogue; and (5) reinstating Rabbi Tendler as Rabbi pursuant to the contract
Order to show Cause, Affidavits and Supporting Pagers 1-12
Opposing Affidavits and Supporting Papers 13-28
Reply Affidavits and Supporting Papers 29-35
Upon a review of the voluminous papers submitted in support and in opposition to the motion, and after hearing extensive oral argument from both sides, the Court denies plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunctions in all respects. Plaintiffs' application cannot be decided by applying neutral principles of law, and therefore would require impermissible inquiries into the operation of the Congregation and religious doctrine. Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v Kahana. 820 N.Y.S. 2d 62, 31 A.D.3d 541 (2nd Dept., 2006).
On the basis of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied in all respects.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court
Dated: New City, New York
November 22, 2006
Richard B. Liebowitz
Supreme Court Justice
Paul Savad & Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
55 Old Turnpike Rd - Suite 209
Nanuet, New York 10954
Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP
Attorney for Defendants
Fred Brinn, Seymour Ratner, Bruce Minsky, Schlomo Pomerantz, Jerrold Wolfset and David Resnik, Individually, and as Directors and Trustees of Bais Knesses of New Hempstead, Inc.
100 Jericho Quadrangle
Stuite 214
Jericho, New York 11753
posted by Jewish Survivors at Tuesday, November 28, 2006
4 Comments:
Can someone explain in plain english what this means?
I believe this means that Tendler and the Esformes does NOT have a right to sue those at Kehillat New Hempstead or the synagogue it self.
JUST SENT OUT BY KNH
November 29, 2006
Kislev 8, 5767
Dear Members and Friends:
As many of you know, this past July 2006, a lawsuit was commenced by several people against certain Board members individually, as well as against the Board of Directors, Board of Trustees, and Kehillat New Hempstead. The lawsuit, an alleged derivative action, filed during the Three Weeks, and with an initial hearing date on Tisha B’Av, initially sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting Kehillat New Hempstead from, among other things, identifying and hiring a new Rabbi. Overall, the plaintiffs sought not only to force Kehillat New Hempstead to rehire R. Tendler, but they also claimed monetary damages to them personally in an amount in excess of $1,000,000. These monetary damages were being sought both from Kehillat New Hempstead, and the individual Board members. As part of the initial phase of this lawsuit, the Court decided to temporarily prohibit certain KNH activities pending the determination of the request for a preliminary injunction.
At this time, I am very pleased to inform you that the Court this past week issued a decision denying the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction in all respects. As such, KNH is now free to operate without any Court imposed restrictions or prohibitions. The only matter now remaining in this lawsuit is KNH’s motion to dismiss the entire action. After numerous requests for an adjournment by plaintiffs, that motion is now returnable in Court on December 22, 2006.
In conjunction with the Court’s decision, and our firm convictions that all actions taken by KNH and its Board members were appropriate in all regards, we remain confident that the entire lawsuit will be dismissed.
In light of the above, a Special Membership Meeting will be scheduled in the next few weeks to discuss the future plans of the Shul. All members will be sent a notice of the meeting shortly, indicating all the details of the meeting and the agenda.
Fortunately for all of us, both as individuals and as a Community, Kehillat New Hempstead continues to successfully operate and grow with renewed viability, and we look forward B”H, to even more unimpeded successes and achievements in the future.
Fred Brinn
President
I am very disappointed you post this on your site. A huge difference from your other exposures and satire of this whole case. KNH does not support any survivors let alone speak out for them as you do. KNH has taken no responsibility for what or how they victimized those that survived the abuse of Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, nor how they continue to do so. Neither does KNH comprehend the meaning of victimizing or have a sense of empathy. They are at most apathetic and mostly public relation advocates of un- proportional empathy for themselves but no sense for victims. KNH have their own blogs; that is Canonist, Steven Weiss being a huge fan of KNH members; and New Hempstead News another friend of the “new” KNH. Fact is they are the same KNH and continue to support Tendler through there actions and claims in counter suits against Plaintiff. Fact is they are the same KNH who originally supported Tendler against victims, took aggressive actions in harassing victims and made sure to demean them to disarm the community in believing their Rabbi is a sexual predator. It would be honorable to have left JSSV to represent speaking out for the many who fell prey to Rabbinical abuse rather then KNH and its President Fred Brinn who represent nothing more then a synagogue that participated and took action to threaten and ostracize victims of Tendler.
Post a Comment
<< Home