Matter of Ming Tung v. China Buddhist Assn.
124 A.D.3d 13
N.Y. App. Div.2014Background
- China Buddhist Association (CBA), incorporated 1963, owns two temples (Manhattan and Queens); bylaws call for annual elections but only one membership meeting occurred (1964) until 2011.
- Master Mew Fung Chen is CBA founder and long‑time spiritual leader; he appointed trustees in 2011, closed the Manhattan temple, and proclaimed the excommunication of the Manhattan disciples (petitioners).
- Petitioners (a monk, a nun, and a lay worshiper) were expelled and barred from CBA temples; they sought relief in an Article 78 petition to invalidate actions taken around a May 2011 meeting, to require a new duly noticed meeting, and to permit them to vote on dividing the CBA.
- Supreme Court vacated the May 2011 meeting/election and ordered a future meeting including petitioners; respondents appealed arguing courts cannot resolve ecclesiastical membership/excommunication disputes.
- Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, holding questions turn on ecclesiastical matters not resolvable by neutral principles of law; dissent argued statutory voter‑qualification (R.C.L. §195) allowed judicial enforcement of corporate procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may void May 2011 meeting and require a new meeting including petitioners | Petitioners: meeting was improperly called, notice withheld from those entitled to vote; corporate formalities must be enforced and a new meeting ordered | Respondents: relief would require deciding validity of excommunications, an ecclesiastical matter beyond secular adjudication | Court: Petition dismissed — resolution would require inquiry into religious doctrine/discipline, not neutral principles of law. |
| Whether petitioners have standing/qualification to vote despite excommunication | Petitioners: even if expelled as "members," R.C.L. §195 permits attendants/contributors to vote; they and other congregants regularly worshiped and contributed | Respondents: membership controls voting; excommunications (spiritual determinations) removed petitioners’ membership and voting rights | Court: Petitioners did not pursue §195 below; membership defined by discipleship and spiritual leader, so court may not adjudicate excommunication. |
| Whether courts may apply neutral principles (bylaws, deeds, RCL) to resolve dispute | Petitioners: bylaws and RCL govern corporate actions; deeds/title are to CBA — courts can enforce corporate governance without touching doctrine | Respondents: bylaws are silent on membership procedures/excommunication; deciding who is a disciple requires ecclesiastical inquiry | Court: Neutral principles unavailable because core dispute requires evaluating religious criteria for discipleship/excommunication. |
| Whether judicial intervention is permissible to protect temporal property/rights when spiritual authority purports to dissolve a congregation | Petitioners/dissent: corporate law separates temporal property control from ecclesiastical acts; courts may ensure bylaws/statute compliance and protect corporate assets | Respondents: actions are ecclesiastical and intertwined with membership status and doctrine | Court: Declined to intervene — determining who is a member (and thus voter) would require forbidden entanglement in religious matters. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (religious bodies entitled to independence from secular control)
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (courts must not review ecclesiastical decisions to avoid entanglement)
- First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyterian Church in U.S.A., 62 N.Y.2d 110 (neutral principles approach permits secular review only when disputes resolvable by legal documents and property law)
- Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 N.Y.3d 282 (membership conditioned on religious criteria precludes judicial inquiry under neutral principles)
- Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (courts cannot resolve doctrinal controversies)
- Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v. Tax Comm'n of City of N.Y., 55 N.Y.2d 512 (constitutional protections for religious practice not limited by organizational structure)
- Westminster Presbyt. Church of W. Twenty-Third St. v. Trustees of Presbytery of N.Y., 211 N.Y. 214 (distinguishing spiritual dissolution from corporate property control)