FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`1
`
`NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
`NEW YORK COUNTY : CIVIL TERM : PART 8
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`YU PRIDE ALLIANCE, MOLLY MEISELS, DONIEL WEINREICH, AMITAI
`MILLER, and ANONYMOUS,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`-against-
`YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, VICE PROVOST CHAIM NISSEL, and
`PRESIDENT ARI BERMAN,
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`Index No. 154010/2021
`MICROSOFT TEAMS PROCEEDING
`
`February 10, 2022
`
`B E F O R E: HON. LYNN R. KOTLER
`
` Supreme Court Justice
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
`Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
`600 Fifth Avenue - 10th Floor
`New York, New York 10020
`BY: KATHERINE ROSENFELD, ESQ.
`
`BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
`Attorneys for the Defendants
`1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`BY: ERIC BAXTER, ESQ.
`AND: WILLIAM HAUN, ESQ.
`AND: ABIGAIL SMITH, ESQ.
`
`Lori Ann Sacco
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`1
`
`NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT
`NEW YORK COUNTY : CIVIL TERM : PART 8
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`YU PRIDE ALLIANCE, MOLLY MEISELS, DONIEL WEINREICH, AMITAI
`MILLER, and ANONYMOUS,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`-against-
`YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, VICE PROVOST CHAIM NISSEL, and
`PRESIDENT ARI BERMAN,
`Defendants.
`---------------------------------------------------------X
`Index No. 154010/2021
`MICROSOFT TEAMS PROCEEDING
`
`February 10, 2022
`
`B E F O R E: HON. LYNN R. KOTLER
`
` Supreme Court Justice
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
`Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
`600 Fifth Avenue - 10th Floor
`New York, New York 10020
`BY: KATHERINE ROSENFELD, ESQ.
`
`BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
`Attorneys for the Defendants
`1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`BY: ERIC BAXTER, ESQ.
`AND: WILLIAM HAUN, ESQ.
`AND: ABIGAIL SMITH, ESQ.
`
`Lori Ann Sacco
`Official Court Reporter
`
`1 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`2
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`MS. ROSENFELD: Good afternoon. This is
`Katie Rosenfeld for plaintiffs.
`MR. BAXTER: Eric Baxter for the Yeshiva
`defendants. And I am with William Haun and Abigail
`Smith.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Everybody who is with us
`today, I just want to let everybody who is appearing
`today, part of the public, we have not received any
`written application to videotape or audio report this
`proceeding. So, there is no taping of the
`proceeding, nor are there any photos allowed,
`including any screen graphs, okay. Thank you.
`All right. So we have -- we have a motion
`for summary judgment. The Court converted that
`motion for summary judgment. Then we have
`Ms. Rosenfeld's cross motion for partial summary
`judgment. Then we have obviously opposition, reply.
`So I think we have all the papers that we need today.
`Okay. Any -- any housekeeping issues that we need to
`take care of before we start with the oral arguments?
`MR. BAXTER: Not for defendants, your Honor.
`MS. ROSENFELD: Not for plaintiffs.
`THE COURT: I think what makes the most sense
`is to start with the defendants' motion for summary
`judgment and then Ms. Rosenfeld will have an
`
`2 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`3
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`opportunity.
`MR. BAXTER: Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: And also in support of your
`application for partial summary judgment. Okay.
`Mr. Baxter.
`MR. BAXTER: Thank you, your Honor, and good
`afternoon. Eric Baxter on behalf of the Yeshiva
`defendants. May it please the Court, the Yeshiva
`defendants are entitled to summary judgment for
`primarily two reasons. First, the New York City
`Human Rights Law does not apply to a religious
`corporation incorporated under the Education Law.
`And second, the First Amendment bars the Court from
`inserting itself into the religious decisions of an
`organization like yeshiva.
`Regarding the statutory defense, no one
`disputes that yeshiva is incorporated under the
`Education Law. So this question turns on whether it
`is religious. Despite plaintiffs' plea for
`additional discovery, they have made almost no
`mention of it in their briefing, in fact we're here
`on essentially the same facts that were before the
`Court at the preliminary injunction stage only
`stronger for yeshiva. We knew already that yeshiva
`students are required to engage in intense religious
`
`3 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`4
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`studies. They pray and worship together on campus.
`They are asked to follow the laws of Sabbath and
`kashruth on campus.
`Discovery further showed the driving
`influence of the roshei yeshiva or the senior rabbis
`on campus. There is no major decision made without
`the participation of the roshei yeshiva and their
`assurance that the change or decision is in alignment
`with Torah values. Every student who is -- seeks
`application to the university undergoes an individual
`interview to make sure that they understand the
`religious nature of the environment they are entering
`and that's what they desire to do. And every student
`that is admitted is then assigned a mashgiach ruchani
`or a spiritual advisor to provide them personal
`spiritual guidance throughout their career at Yeshiva
`University. This is one -- You cannot step onto the
`campus or into a batei midrash without recognizing
`that this is a sacred space for students who are
`studying there. It is one of the most overtly
`religious schools in the country. If it doesn't
`qualify as religious, then there is no school in New
`York City or anywhere as a matter of fact that would
`qualify. And that's probably why plaintiffs have
`actually never really challenged the religious nature
`
`4 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`5
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`of Yeshiva University. Their complaint concedes that
`students go to yeshiva for personal religious growth
`within a religious community, and their closing brief
`acknowledges that Judaism is essential to yeshiva's
`existence.
`So instead we have here an argument that --
`from plaintiffs that the phrase religious corporation
`is somehow a term of art that excludes yeshiva. The
`problem is that that argument is not supported
`anywhere in the statute, and in fact in its
`August 18th preliminary injunction order this Court
`already held that adopting plaintiffs' argument would
`require to entirely ignore the religious exemption or
`to give abnormal meaning to its words.
`Plaintiffs' arguments fair no better this
`time around. Their first argument is that a
`religious corporation requires a corporation to be
`incorporated or eligible to be incorporated under the
`Religious Corporations Law or the RCL. This is the
`exact same argument that the Court of Appeals
`rejected in the St. John's University case, where the
`plaintiff argued that the religious exemption under
`the State Humans Rights Law required incorporation
`under the RCL. The Court of Appeals said that's
`simply incorrect. There is nothing in the statute to
`
`5 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`6
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`support that. The same is true here. This Court
`would have to contradict the Court of Appeals to rule
`in plaintiffs' favor.
`The corporation laws themselves also make
`clear the religious corporations can incorporate
`under a variety of different statutes. The RCL
`itself defines religious corporation. It says, "When
`religious corporation is used in this statute, we
`mean a religious corporation incorporated under the
`statute with one caveat, unless the context requires
`otherwise", a definition that would not be required
`if religious corporation inherently meant something
`incorporated under the RCL.
`The Education Law Section 313 states that
`it's a fundamental American right for religious
`institutions to form schools that promote their faith
`and serve students of their faith, and that those
`schools have to incorporate under the Education Law.
`The Not-For-Profit Corporation Law also provides that
`charitable organizations can organize under it for
`religious purposes. And, in fact, the St.
`Bartholomew case, which is from the First Department,
`held that it's actually the Not-For-Profit
`Corporation Law that is the default law for governing
`religious corporations not the RCL. That's because
`
`6 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`7
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`the RCL and Education Law both incorporate the
`Not-For-Profit Law in explicit terms.
`And there are numerous cases, your Honor, the
`Watson case out of the Second Department, the Lueken
`case, which both distinguish and recognize that there
`are religious corporations under the RCL which is
`different from those that are more broadly classed as
`religious corporations in the terms of the Watson
`case.
`
`If the City Council had meant to exclude only
`religious corporations incorporated under the
`Religious Corporations Law, it would have had to say
`that, because leaving no definition would have
`inherently meant any religious corporations under any
`of these laws. And, of course, the City Council here
`specifically did say religious corporations
`incorporated under the Education Law or the Religious
`Corporations Law. So, plaintiffs' argument
`completely ignores the text. It ignores the cases
`that deal with these issues. To get around that
`plaintiffs move to say well, yes, but yeshiva's
`charter says it is organized exclusively for
`educational purposes. Well, religious formation is
`an educational purpose. That is within the ordinary
`meaning of the words. But there are also cases that
`
`7 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`8
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`specifically say that religious formation is an
`educational purpose, and that's the In Re Moses case
`from the Second Department. The Kluger case also
`makes the same holding.
`More importantly, the Hapletah case, which is
`not in our briefs, your Honor, but it can be found at
`79 N.Y.2d at 249, it's a Court of Appeals case where
`the Court said that the phrase exclusively -- that
`the phrase exclusive purpose has to be read broadly
`and generously really to mean principal or primary
`purpose. And that's also supported by the Kluger
`case. The phrase is never intended to impose some
`kind of restriction on the things that the
`organization can do. If you look at paragraph 9 of
`yeshiva's 1967 amended charter, it's even more clear.
`Plaintiffs only read half the sentence. It says yes,
`this organization is organized for exclusively
`educational purposes, but it goes on to say that
`therefore the profits of the organization cannot
`inure to any one individual. The purpose of the
`statement in the charter is not to impose some kind
`of strict exclusion on what Yeshiva University can
`do, it's to distinguish yeshiva as a not-for-profit
`educational corporation as opposed to a for-profit
`corporation.
`
`8 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`9
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`So, plaintiffs next argue well, yeshiva at
`least should have included a religious purpose in its
`charter. Well, in the first place yeshiva does have
`a religious purpose in its charter. Again, the 1967
`amendment says that yeshiva is and continues to be
`organized for educational purpose. That is
`"continues to be" refers back to the original
`charter, which says that yeshiva was organized for
`the purpose of promoting the study of Talmud.
`Now plaintiffs are essentially elevating form
`over substance here. I don't think what they really
`want -- Yeshiva would be happy to stipulate to adding
`a more direct statement of religious purpose in its
`charter if plaintiffs would agree to dismiss the
`case. That's obviously not why they are here. So
`their argument to elevate form over substance really
`just shoots themselves in the foot, besides the fact
`that cases for over a century have rejected the form
`over substance argument. The Kittinger case from
`1936 looked at an organization incorporated under the
`Business Law with the purpose of being a stock
`corporation. And the Court said no, we're going to
`look past that to see what it's actually doing, which
`was religious activity. And then the converse in the
`Naarim case from 2005, which plaintiffs cite, a
`
`9 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`10
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`religious canon had organized for religious purposes
`as an RCL organization. The Court said no, it's
`clear you're running a for-profit camp here. We are
`going to treat it like a for-profit camp. There is
`no basis for plaintiffs' argument that the form or
`the words of the charter should be elevated over the
`obvious nature of yeshiva's function.
`Your Honor, I would like to address the
`public policy argument that plaintiffs make. They
`essentially say that well yeshiva looks a lot like a
`public accommodation, because it provides networking
`opportunity and career development services. Things
`that are the types of things that would -- you know,
`other public accommodations do. Well, first yeshiva
`doesn't exclude any students from those services.
`More importantly the law doesn't cover anything that
`looks like a public accommodation. Very specifically
`defines certain categories as not being public
`accommodations. And your court noted this in the
`August 18th preliminary injunction order. The
`statute excludes organizations that are distinctly
`private, and then says that religious corporations
`incorporated under the Education Law, like yeshiva,
`are deemed to be distinctly private. So are
`benevolent societies. And the Gifford court, I
`
`10 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`11
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`believe it's the Second Department, said that that
`exemption was absolute and not subject to
`limitations. So, that utterly destroys any argument
`by plaintiffs that the City Council somehow intended
`to reach something more broadly or to extend itself
`into the religious decisions of an organization like
`Yeshiva University. Quite the contrary, it shows
`that the City Council is extremely sensitive to the
`religious concerns. Defendants didn't rely on this
`section, but the Court can also refer to
`Section 8-107 12 of the NYCHYL, which addresses
`religious organizations that are not incorporated
`under the Education Law or RCL. So, this could be
`medical religious corporations or homeless shelters,
`a variety of other non profits, and says that the
`decisions that those organizations that are designed
`to promote the religious purposes of the
`organization, that those are also exempt from the
`statute. So clearly the City Council is very
`sensitive to the First Amendment concerns, the rights
`of religious organizations, and plaintiffs have
`identified no argument to the contrary.
`Now even if we were to assume that there is
`no statutory defense or that the statutory defense
`somehow fails in this case, the First Amendment also
`
`11 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`12
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`provides extensive protection for Yeshiva University.
`Plaintiffs hardly even contend this. They have one
`sentence in their closing brief, citing to the Court
`of Appeals decision in Serio which involved a law
`that required all employers to provide contraception.
`One problem with that is the United States Supreme
`Court just a couple of months ago vacated a decision
`in Diocese of Albany versus State of New York
`addressing almost identical -- an almost identical
`regulation, and the Court vacated a decision
`upholding the regulation under Serio, and said that
`decision had to be reconsidered in light of the
`Supreme Court's most recent decision in Fulton versus
`City of Philadelphia. And in Fulton and a series of
`other cases that arose out of COVID situation,
`including Tandon, the Court said if a statute has a
`single secular exception, then it cannot deny an
`exception to religious organizations, because that
`exception shows that the city's claimed compelling
`interest is not so serious after all if it's able to
`give exceptions to other organizations that are doing
`similar things for nonreligious reasons.
`So, Serio is a very thin read. Even on its
`own terms, Serio wouldn't apply here to yeshiva's
`religious autonomy argument. In Serio the Court said
`
`12 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`13
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`well, there is no religious autonomy concerns because
`the regulation impacted such a small area of the
`religious organization's work. Only whether they had
`to provide contraception under -- under their health
`plans. Here plaintiffs' argument is that Yeshiva
`University has no protection at all under the NYCHRL,
`exposing it to all of its provisions. So it would
`not just be club decisionmaking. It would be
`yeshiva's, you know, segregated dorms. It's
`segregated prayers, even though these are mandated by
`Torah, all of these things would be subject to
`liability under NYCHRL.
`It goes much further than that. The NYCHRL
`also prohibits creed, creedal discrimination or
`religious discrimination. So, requirements that
`students engage in intense religious studies. The
`requirements that students observe the Sabbath,
`kashruth, laws of kashruth on campus. The fact that
`there are synagogues on campus but not churches or
`mosques, all of these decisions, religious decisions
`would be subject to lawsuits under plaintiffs'
`theory. There is no way that the Serio Court
`intended its decision there to have that type of
`consequence. Every religious school in New York
`would essentially be forced to stop being religious.
`
`13 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`14
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`That can't be right.
`The NYCHRL was enacted in part because of
`anti-Semitism and to protect minority groups. Like
`Jews who wanted to study the Torah intensely at the
`graduate level or at the college level, it would be a
`perversion of the law to now apply it, to say that
`Yeshiva University has to stop being Jewish.
`So, plaintiffs' arguments ignore the statute.
`They ignore the case law. They ignore the
`legislative intent that's clear from the face of the
`statute. And they ignore the constitutional
`protections that protect organizations like Yeshiva
`University in making religious decisions about the
`religious environment on their campus. And for these
`reasons, your Honor, we would ask the Court to grant
`summary judgment to the Yeshiva defendants and
`without further delay. Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I don't see
`Ms. Rosenfeld. Anybody who is appearing, if you
`could just put your microphones on mute if you're not
`speaking. Thank you.
`MS. ROSENFELD: Good afternoon, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. So to
`Ms. Rosenfeld, if I heard Mr. Baxter correctly, you
`know, are the plaintiffs saying that for an
`
`14 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`15
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`organization to be religious it has to be
`incorporated under the RCL?
`MS. ROSENFELD: No, your Honor.
`THE COURT: No, okay. So then tell me.
`MS. ROSENFELD: Yeah. So, your Honor, the
`case law that we have put before your Honor and the
`definition of the Religious Corporations Law work
`together here to make it clear that under New York
`Law, a religious corporation is one that was created
`to, as the definition says in Section 2, enable its
`members to meet for divine worship or other religious
`observance. So a religious corporation that is
`created for that purpose of divine worship, a church,
`a synagogue, a mosque, a temple, may be incorporated
`under other statutes and qualify as a religious
`corporation if its purpose is, as the definition of
`the Religious Corporations Law in Section 2 says, is
`to meet for divine worship and other religious
`observances. So, your Honor, we have cited cases in
`our brief that, for example, Geeta Temple-Ashram,
`it's a Second Department case from 2011, and it says
`that a Hindu temple, which was a place of worship, as
`the Religious Corporation Law requires, although it
`was legally formed under the Not-For-Profit Law, was
`a de facto religious corporation, because it was a
`
`15 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`16
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`place of worship. It had a religious corporation
`language in its Certificate of Incorporation. So it
`qualified.
`So, it is not our position, your Honor, that
`to be a religious corporation, an entity must be
`incorporated under the Religious Corporations Law.
`And so therefore what the law is very clear about is
`that to be a religious corporation, it is not a
`subjective, far ranging, nebulous inquiry into
`whether an entity is religious. Because that, of
`course, would involve the Court in subjective,
`standardless decisions about whether an entity is
`sufficiently religious to qualify. A religious
`corporation is an entity that exists, as the
`Religious Corporation Law sets out in great detail,
`for divine worship or religious observance, and a
`certain set of rules govern its meetings, its
`incorporation, the duties of its trustees. If you
`meet for divine worship, and when we look at your
`Certificate of Incorporation, courts say let's start
`there. Maybe we don't end there. Maybe we look then
`if whether you are a place of worship or a place of
`prayer, right. So in the Kroth case the Supreme
`Court looked at okay, the corporation owns a
`synagogue. It operates a synagogue. It's a house of
`
`16 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`17
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`worship. It's a religious corporation. It's a de
`facto religious corporation.
`In the Watt case, the corporation, the
`Certificate of Corporation, the Court looks at that
`first. Okay, it's purpose is to provide a place of
`worship. You're operating a Buddhist temple. It's a
`place where people go to pray. You're a religious
`corporation.
`And so the Court here, we start with a
`Certificate of Incorporation which says clearly that
`Yeshiva University has no religious purpose. It's an
`educational corporation with an educational purpose
`unlike, your Honor, its seminary. The Yeshiva
`University seminary, as the Court is aware from the
`papers, was divorced from yeshiva in 1967. Yeshiva
`made a choice at that point. It separated itself
`from its seminary, which granted religious degrees.
`It incorporated itself solely for educational
`purposes. And it reads, "The seminary maintains the
`religious purpose". The purpose it reads, under its
`1970 Certificate of Incorporation, is "To prepare
`students for the rabbinate and to issue Certificates
`of Incorporation therewith." Yeshiva put the
`religious degrees and the religious purpose with its
`seminary, and it chose for whatever reasons it may
`
`17 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`18
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`have which are not at issue here, to become an
`educational corporation, to become a university and
`to change.
`So, the Court starts under New York Law,
`which the case is, of the analysis of what it means
`in certificate interpretation. And here we have
`clear charter documents. And we have an even clearer
`set of facts here about those incorporating
`documents, your Honor, because this is an entity that
`intentionally decided to become the type of entity it
`is today and to place religious degrees and religious
`clergy and religious purpose in a different entity.
`And then the Court looks and says is this a church.
`Is this a synagogue. Is this a place where people
`come to worship. And when we look at that, your
`Honor, those are the two things the Court can look
`at, whether it's a place of divine worship, and
`whether the Certificate of Incorporation and the
`charter documents reflect and support that.
`There is no case, your Honor, before the
`Court where an entity, that is not a house of worship
`and is has no religious purpose in its charter
`documents, has ever been found to be a religious
`corporation. And I really want to focus my remarks
`today for your Honor on the narrowness of the
`
`18 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`19
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`question before the Court.
`We have a narrow question of statutory
`interpretation that the Court correctly identified in
`its August ruling. The Court said, I have a narrow
`legal question here, and your Honor reiterated this
`in your discovery ruling. Is this a religious
`corporation under New York Law. That is a question
`of law. We look to answer that to the statute. We
`look to the language in the statute under Court of
`Appeals precedent about basic canons of
`interpretation, the Carroll case that we cite in our
`papers. And we start there and we says what does
`this text say. It says a religious corporation,
`under the Religious Corporations Law or the Education
`Law.
`
`So, you can be incorporated under the
`Education Law and be a religious corporation
`according to the council there if -- if then we look
`to what is a religious corporation, and we start with
`the Religious Corporations Law. It's the only place
`in New York Law that defines what a New York
`corporation is. Again, we go back to it's a place of
`divine worship. Every chapter in the Religious
`Corporations Law governs the operation of a different
`denomination, a church, a synagogue, a mosque.
`
`19 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`20
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`That's what the Religious Corporations Law deals
`with. That is a familiar distinction, your Honor, in
`law. A protection for houses of worship as opposed
`to a broader protection for religious institutions or
`organizations.
`So when we look at the statutory language,
`when we look at all the cases which show clearly that
`under New York Law you must be a place of worship,
`you must reflect that you are meeting for divine
`worship, and you must, in your Certificate of
`Incorporation, starting to look there, find a
`religious purpose. Yeshiva is not a religious
`corporation.
`Your Honor, significant 8-107 12 --
`THE COURT: But, Ms. Rosenfeld, it just seems
`like you're focusing on the Certificate of
`Incorporation and that's it. I mean, because what
`happens with like St. John's or St. Barnabas, the
`hospital?
`MS. ROSENFELD: It --
`THE COURT: They clearly have religious
`undertones, and they -- they follow certain religious
`beliefs with those institutions.
`MS. ROSENFELD: Your Honor, I'm really glad
`that you asked that, because if that's the impression
`
`20 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`21
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`that I'm leaving, that's the wrong impression and I
`want to very much clarify that. The issue here is if
`you're a religious corporation under the exemption in
`the Public Accommodations Law. When the City Council
`passed the public accommodations expansion in 1984,
`it added this language, right. It said there are
`broad public accommodation protections for almost any
`kind of public accommodation, probably the broadest
`in the city. There is three exceptions, a club of
`less than 300 -- 400 people. A benevolent
`corporation or a religious corporation under the two
`statutes. Those are small, membership based groups
`where the council -- where the record reflects that
`there was an interest in protecting the intimate
`associational rights of those people in the face of
`what is otherwise public accommodations protections
`for the public. You can come to my university and
`eat in my cafeteria if you're Muslim. You can come
`to my university as a student and form a club
`regardless of your protected status. That is what a
`public accommodation section of the law provides.
`Separately, your Honor, in the statute there
`is 8-107 12. That says that nothing is going to bar
`a religious or denominational institution or
`organization or one operated for those purposes from
`
`21 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`22
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`taking steps and employment in sales, in housing
`accommodation rentals, in admissions to giving
`preference to persons of its own denomination or for
`making decisions to promote its religious principles.
`So, your Honor, it is true that St. Barnabas
`or St. John's or Fordham cannot, as a public
`accommodation, refuse to give equal benefits and
`services to people because of a protected reason.
`That is impermissible under the New York City Human
`Rights Law, and that is the determination of the
`council. What they can do is, as a religious, much
`broader 8-107 12 entity, an institution, an
`organization, any of these things controlled by, in
`connection with, they can make housing decisions.
`They can make, you know, all of the other types of
`employment, sales, rental, admission decisions. So
`that reflects a very careful distinction by council
`to protect the religious principles of those broader
`group of organizations with respect to co-religionist
`as to who they might want to hire or admit, but not
`for public accommodations, your Honor. Public
`accommodations has a narrower statutory term. The
`only kind of exemption that is available for public
`accommodations is of the religious corporation. And
`that is a narrower term.
`
`22 of 56
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/17/2022 11:31 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 325
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/17/2022
`23
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`THE COURT: So you're telling me that yeshiva
`is not religious, and also it divested itself from
`the seminary a long time ago, and it's only
`educational?
`MS. ROSENFELD: No, your Honor. I am saying
`that Yeshiva University has a wonderful religious
`tradition and heritage, an affiliation and culture
`that my clients very much have benefited from and are
`proud to be a part of. But I am saying that the City
`Council determined, in drafting the statute, that a
`religious culture or affiliation or identity is not
`the legal status that exempts you from the Public
`Accommodations Law. I am saying that council's
`determination is that a narrower group, a narrower
`group of entities is entitled to say we're not public
`accommodations, and you don't have to let us in
`because we're -- maybe we're a synagogue. And Jewish
`people are here. And Jewish people are members. And
`we're not going to force a synagogue to be treated as
`a public accommodation. That's very different
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
This document costs money. The Court sets the fee and charges it at the time of purchase.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
