Majority
OPINION OF THE COURT
The Hindu Temple Society of North America was incorporated in 1970 under article 9 of the Religious Corporations Law. In the same year, it adopted bylaws calling for the members of the Society to elect its trustees. Those bylaws were never implemented, and were forgotten until 2001, when petitioners rediscovered them and demanded that the prescribed elections take place. The Appellate Division upheld petitioners’ demand.
We hold that the Appellate Division erred for two reasons: the requirement of elections for trustees is inconsistent with the Religious Corporations Law, and therefore invalid; and, in any event, the 1970 bylaws had been abandoned by 2001.
I
The Society’s certificate of incorporation was filed with the Department of State on February 17, 1970. It says that the Society is organized “[pjursuant to Article 9 of the Religious Corporations Law.” The certificate names seven trustees. On May 21, 1970, the Society applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a tax exemption, attaching to its application a set of bylaws. The Appellate Division found that these bylaws were adopted by the Society in 1970, and we accept that finding as supported by the record.
The 1970 bylaws define the “General Body” as “all members in good standing who have paid their annual dues” and provide that “[t]he members of the General Body shall elect members of the Board of Trustees” for three-year terms, at meetings to be held annually. The 1970 bylaws also provide that they can be amended only by a vote of the General Body. So far as the record shows, however, neither these provisions nor any others in
From the inception of the Society, it was in fact governed by a self-perpetuating board of trustees. The trustees named in the certificate of incorporation added others to their number, and when vacancies later occurred they were filled by a vote of the board. A memorandum prepared in 1975 describes the “Interim Organizational Structure” of the Society, making no reference to the 1970 bylaws and containing no provision for election of trustees by members. A 1977 report, directed at devising a “more permanent framework,” says: “It is most fortunate that the society did not adopt the recognized methods of cultural societies with annual elections, change of officers etc.” In 1978, the board adopted new bylaws that said “[t]he Board of Trustees will exercise the function of final selection and appointment” of its own ihembership. The Society operated under the 1978 bylaws, as amended by the trustees from time to time, until after this dispute arose; none of the amendments disturbed the board’s power of “final selection and appointment.” There is no record that anyone, before the 21st century, expressed any doubt that the 1978 bylaws were validly adopted.
The belief of the Society’s leadership that the Society should and did have a self-perpetuating, not an elected, board was not kept secret. An article entitled “Building Temples or Community Centres in Modern Times,” written in 1977 by one of the Society’s founders, held up the Society’s temple as a model. The article warned that “it will be self-defeating” if a temple “is organised as a cultural society with annual elections, [and] continuous change in officials .... High level people will not join if they have to stand for elections. Decision-making with clear-cut responsibility are [sic] difficult if subjected to general body meetings.” In a letter written many years later, after this litigation had begun, one of the petitioners in this case conceded—unhappily, and in provocative terms—the reality that had long existed: “The temple was managed in a totalitarian form from the very beginning.”
Petitioners, members of the Society who disagreed with certain actions of its management, began this proceeding in
II
In 2002, Supreme Court granted petitioners certain relief, but refused to dissolve the board or appoint a receiver. Supreme Court treated the bylaws adopted in 1978 and thereafter as valid amendments to the 1970 bylaws. Petitioners appealed. The Appellate Division, in a 2003 order, found “no evidence in the record that the required procedures were ever followed to amend the 1970 bylaws” and held that “Supreme Court should have voided the bylaws postdating 1970” (Matter ofVenigalla v Alagappan, 307 AD2d 1041 , 1042 [2d Dept 2003]). Since none of the trustees had been elected as the 1970 bylaws required, the Appellate Division removed the board and directed “the appointment of a referee to direct and oversee a reorganizational meeting of the Society for the purpose of electing a new Board” {id. at 1043).
Supreme Court’s attempts, on remand, to carry out the Appellate Division’s 2003 order generated years of bitter litigation that need not be described here. At length, a new election was held—resulting in a board virtually unchanged from the old one. Despite their success in the election, the trustees appealed to the Appellate Division from a 2006 judgment confirming its results, arguing in substance that the election should never have been held. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment in 2007 ( 41 AD3d 725 [2d Dept 2007]). We granted leave to appeal from the Appellate Division’s 2007 order of affirmance, bringing up for review its 2003 order directing an election. We now reverse.
The Religious Corporations Law, providing rules for the governance of religious bodies, contains articles applicable to many specific denominations, but not to the Hindu faith. A Hindu group that wants to become a religious corporation may, like other groups not specifically provided for, choose to incorporate either under article 9 (“Free Churches”) or article 10 (“Other Denominations”). The Society chose article 9.
The provisions of the Society’s 1970 bylaws that called for election of trustees by the “General Body” contradicted article 9 and were invalid from their inception. The Appellate Division erred in requiring the conduct of an election pursuant to those provisions.
That is enough to require invalidating the election, but we examine also the status of the 1970 bylaws as a whole—not just the provisions for election of trustees—so that the Society can know what its governing document is. We conclude that the 1970 bylaws have long been defunct. As the court said in Pomeroy v Westaway ( 189 Misc 307 , 310 [Sup Ct, NY County 1947], affd 273 App Div 760 [1st Dept 1947]), “nonusage of a by-law, continuing for a considerable length of time, and acquiesced therein, will work its abrogation.” There could hardly be a clearer case than this one for the application of that rule.
While the Appellate Division was justified in finding, based on the submission of the 1970 bylaws to the IRS, that the Society adopted those bylaws in 1970, the record shows that they fell into complete desuetude for the next three decades. By 1975, those running the Society’s affairs had apparently forgotten (if they ever knew) that the 1970 bylaws existed. The Society was run in accordance with bylaws first adopted in 1978, which provided a different approach to governance than the 1970 bylaws, and all members of the Society knew or had the means of knowing this. Until 2001, none protested. To allow petitioners to resuscitate the 1970 bylaws when they finally rediscovered them would be unwise and unfair (see Matter of George [Holstein-Friesian Assn. of Am.], 238 NY 513 , 522 [1924]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones concur; Judge Ciparick taking no part.
Order reversed, etc.
Cases cited
- Alcott Staff Leasing, Inc. v. New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board 224 AD2d 54 p. 56
- Town of Somers v. Camarco 308 NY 537 p. 56
- Berich v. Ithaca Police Benevolent Ass'n 23 AD3d 904 p. 56
- Salino v. Cimino 1 NY3d 166 p. 56, p. 57
- Hildreth-Henry v. Henry 27 AD3d 419 p. 56, p. 57
- Salahuddin v. Coughlin 222 AD2d 950 p. 56, p. 57
- Roanoke Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Town of Brookhaven 24 AD3d 783 p. 56
- Conte v. Town of Norfolk Zoning Board of Appeals 261 AD2d 734 p. 56
- Herbert H. Lehman College Foundation, Inc. v. Fernandez 292 AD2d 227 p. 56
- Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana 9 NY3d 282 p. 56, p. 58, p. 59
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States v. Milivojevich 426 US 696 p. 56
- Rector v. Melish 3 NY2d 476 p. 57
- Venigalla v. Alagappan 307 AD2d 1041 at 1042 p. 57, p. 61
- Rector of New York v. Committee to Preserve St. Bartholomew's Church, Inc. 56 NY2d 71 p. 57
- Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 US 296 p. 57
- Catholic Charities of the Diocese v. Serio 7 NY3d 510 p. 57, p. 59
- Larson v. Valente 456 US 228 p. 57, p. 59
- Everson v. Board of Education 330 US 1 p. 57
- Grumet v. Pataki 93 NY2d 677 p. 57
- Excel Communications, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. 528 US 946 p. 57
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 508 US 520 p. 57
- Morris v. Scribner 69 NY2d 418 p. 57, p. 59
- In re of Saints of God in Christ Inc. 20 Misc 2d 532 p. 57
- Held v. Kaufman 91 NY2d 425 p. 57
- Ioele v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 290 AD2d 614 p. 57
- Board of Education v. Board of Trustees 185 Misc 2d 704 p. 57
- St. Vincent's Hospital & Medical Center v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance 42 AD3d 523 p. 57
- Charney v. North Jersey Trading Corp. 150 Misc 2d 849 p. 57
- Martin v. New York Hospital 295 AD2d 485 p. 57
- Bingham v. New York City Transit Authority 99 NY2d 355 p. 57
- Dowsett v. Dowsett 172 AD2d 610 p. 57
- Matherson v. Marchello 100 AD2d 233 p. 57
- Kalkstein v. DiNapoli 228 AD2d 28 p. 57
- In re the Arbitration between Goodnature Products, Inc. & Guangping Huang 300 AD2d 1050 p. 57
- Fotopoulos v. Berman 298 AD2d 698 p. 57
- In re Kaminsky 277 NY 524 p. 57
- Kroth v. Congregation Chebra Ukadisha Bnai Israel Mikalwarie 105 Misc 2d 904 p. 57
- Watt Samakki Dhammikaram, Inc. v. Thenjitto 166 Misc 2d 16 p. 57
- In re for a Certificate of Incorporation of New York Soul Clinic, Inc. 208 Misc 612 p. 58
- Diamond v. Art Contracting Co. 147 Misc 88 p. 58
- Witthaus v. St. Thomas' Church 161 App Div 208 p. 58
- Emmett v. American Equitable Assurance Co. 194 Misc 529 p. 58
- New York District of Assemblies of God v. Calvary Assembly of God 64 AD2d 311 p. 58
- New York Annual Conference of the Methodist Church v. Nam Un Cho 156 AD2d 511 p. 58
- St. Matthew Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Inc. v. Creech 196 Misc 2d 843 p. 58
- Hausner v. Hopewell Products, Inc. 22 Misc 2d 969 p. 58
- Islamic Center of Harrison, Inc. v. Islamic Science Foundation, Inc. 262 AD2d 362 p. 58
- Karageorgious v. Laoudis 271 AD2d 653 p. 58
- Russian Church of Our Lady of Kazan v. Dunkel 67 Misc 2d 1032 p. 58
- Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America 344 US 94 p. 58
- Bernal v. Fainter 467 US 216 p. 58
- Nordlinger v. Hahn 505 US 1 p. 58
- Sugarman v. Dougall 413 US 634 p. 58
- In re Griffiths 413 US 717 p. 58
- Examining Board of Engineers, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero 426 US 572 p. 58
- People v. Felix 58 NY2d 156 p. 58
- Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. State 5 NY3d 327 p. 58
- O'Brien v. Spitzer 7 NY3d 239 p. 58
- Robertson v. Bullions 11 NY 243 p. 59
- Benintendi v. Kenton Hotel, Inc. 294 NY 112 p. 59
- In re the Arbitration between Burkin & Katz 1 NY2d 570 p. 59
- Cutter v. Wilkinson 544 US 709 p. 59
- City of New York v. State 76 NY2d 479 p. 59
- Venigalla v. Nori 41 AD3d 725 p. 61
- Pomeroy v. Westaway 189 Misc 307 at 310 p. 62
- In re George 238 NY 513 at 522 p. 62