• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS--------------------------------------------------------------------XWILMOS FRIEDMAN, HERMAN KAHAN, ZIGMONDBRACH, JOSE MASRI, ERVIN ROSNER, MORRISFRIEDMAN, JOSEPH EPSTEIN, HERMAN LANDAU,MOSES SPIELMAN and all others similarly situated,Index No.Plaintiffs, 33481/08-against-CYL CEMETERY, INC., CONGREGATION YETEVLEV D’SATMAR, INC., CHEVRE KADISHED’SATMAR, a division of CONGREGATION YETEVLEV D’SATMAR, INC., CONGREGATION YETEVLEV D’SATMAR OF KIRYAS JOEL, INC., CENTRALCONGREGATION YETEV LEV D’SATMAR, INC.,RABBI EZRIEL GLUCK, JOSEPH WEISS, MOSESWITRIOL, DAVID MARKOWITZ, CHAIM ELIEZERGROSS, JOEL KAUFMAN, DAVID EKSTEIN, ELIASHOROWITZ, and SHLOMO WERTZBERGER,Defendants.--------------------------------------------------------------------X
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW
This Reply Memorandum of Law is respectfully submitted onbehalf of plaintiffs in further support of, and in response to certaindefendants’ opposition to, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunctionprohibiting defendants from interfering with the contractual and statutoryrights of the plaintiffs to burial in the Kiryas Joel Cemetery (“theCemetery”) and to the erection of a headstone, in accordance with
 
Certificates and permits issued by Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc.(“the Congregation”). This Reply Memorandum is also submitted inopposition to the various defendants’ cross-motions to dismiss thecomplaint.The facts are summarized in the Moving and Reply Affirmationof David B. Hamm, as supported by additional affirmations and extensivedocumentary evidence, to which the Court is respectfully referred.Unfortunately, opposing defendants have chosen to foist upon this Courtbald misstatements of the facts, without documentary support and indeed incomplete denial of the facts of record. Critically, those falsifications seem tocenter on the outrageous assertion that plaintiffs, on behalf of the “Kahanfaction” are seeking to seize control of the Cemetery. This preposterousnotion is absolutely belied by the plaintiffs’ Complaint and motion, whichseeks no such relief. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that it isdefendants who are seeking to exclude Congregants of the Congregation orforce them to pay “membership” or other fees to the Central Congregation,of which they are not members at all. This is pure extortion, and should beenjoined.
2
 
 
POINT ITHIS ACTION IS JUSTICIABLE, AS THEISSUES PRESENTED CAN BEDETERMINED BY APPLICATION OFNEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW.
_________
Defendants insist that this case is non-justiciable, seeminglyrelying principally on the fact that this case involves claims by and betweenmembers of and institutions in the Satmar community. Their shotgun attack,seemingly applicable to any and all inter-Satmar claims, must be rejected.The Court of Appeals’ decisions in Matter of CongregationYetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 N.Y.3d 282, 849 N.Y.S.2d 463, 879N.E.2d 1282 (2007) (“election case”) and Congregation Yetev LevD’Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc. v. Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., 9N.Y.3d 297, 849 N.Y.S.2d 192, 879 N.E.2d 731 (2007) (“Cemetery transfercase”) did not hold that every dispute or issue involving Satmar is non- justiciable. Indeed, in the latter case, the Court of Appeals unmistakablyheld that the dispute in that case was justiciable. The Court of Appeals thereaffirmed the Appellate Division, Second Department’s decision voiding thepurported transfer by the Friedman faction of one-half of the Congregation’sinterest in the Cemetery to defendant Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar of Kiryas Joel, Inc. (“KJ”), upon the specific ground that the record showed
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...