APPARENTLY, THE GUY WAS ABSENT FOR MANY YEARS
After he was removed as church president, E.R. filed a case with the Kings County Supreme Court. And when the parties subsequently engaged in motion practice – with E.R. seeking to strike the defendants’ answer or to preclude evidence at trial due to discovery noncompliance, and the defendants cross-moving for summary judgment; pre-trial relief in their favor – the Kings County judge ended up siding with the defendants and dismissed the case.
Among other things, in addition to their being no court order related to discovery, E.R. failed to show the defendants’ failure to comply with the requested demands were “clearly willful and contumacious.”
The defendants, on the other hand, showed that the removal process was conducted in accordance with the state’s Religious Corporations Law and the church’s bylaws. (Apparently, E.R. was replaced because he was reportedly “absent from the church for many years.”) Since there was no evidence that the defendants acted improperly, or in violation of law, the Appellate Division, Second Department, concurred with the court below and affirmed the dismissal.
They clearly didn't bless his absenteeism.
# # #
DECISION