The following papers having been read on this motion: Notice of Motion 1 Opposition 2 Reply 3 Letter from non-party members 4 Letter from non-party members 5 Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of the religious institution for which the parties are members of, moves this Court for an order granting a preliminary injunction in this declaratory judgment and breach of fiduciary duty action, amongst other relief sought herein. Defendants have opposed the application in its entirety and the Court has received timely reply. After review and consideration, the instant order to show cause is hereby granted to the extent that the requested preliminary junction is ordered and all other portions of the motion are hereby denied at this time. As a preliminary matter, on original return date for the order to show cause, two members who identified themselves as members of the subject religious institution, Plaintiff Guru Nanak Darbar of Long Island, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff GNDLI”) appeared before the Court to express concern over the instant litigation. Although not specifically named as a parties to this action, these individuals wished to submit to this Court a letter for consideration as interested parties. While this Court cannot consider these individuals as proper interveners as that term is defined under CPLR §1013, the Court has accepted both letters, dated December 16, 2019, and December 28, 2019, respectively as amici curiae. … In December 2009, Plaintiff GNDLI was formed as a not-for-profit corporation pursuant to Not-for-Profit Corporation Law §102(a)(5) and as a qualified exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, with a principal place of business being located in Hicksville, Nassau County, New York. In 2010, a constitution was drafted and signed by eleven (11) founding trustees, taking effect immediately. Plaintiffs Pawha and Gulati and Defendant Singh were three of the eleven founding trustees. Since that time, it appears undisputed that three elections were held since the constitution was put in place, albeit uncontested, having occurred in 2012, 2014, and 2017. It was this 2017 election where Defendant Singh was elected as president of the organization. The within action was commenced by Plaintiffs on or about December 4, 2019, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief; more specifically, these Plaintiffs, suing on behalf of the religious organization, seek a declaration that the constitution of Plaintiff GNDLI has been violated and to prevent elections of leaders from being held under terms outside of that constitution. Plaintiffs further allege that there is a question of membership, in which certain members of Plaintiff GNDLI are being wrongfully denied the right to vote in the upcoming election and also that these members were wrongfully stripped of their status as members of Plaintiff GNDLI. Plaintiffs brought the instant order to show cause with a temporary restraining order shortly after commencement of this action, seeking a preliminary injunction preventing an election to be held under terms outside Plaintiff GNDLI’s constitution pending a determination on the merits of the instant action. At issue before the Court is a question of membership and the rights conferred to those defined as members under Plaintiff GNDLI’s constitution; that is, the only persons permitted to be considered voting members of this religious institution are those who are “(i) [of] Afghan Sikh origin, (ii) a descendent of Sikhs from Afghanistan, or (iii) married to a Sikh from Afghanistan.” Furthermore to be considered a member, one must “believe in the teachings of the Ten Sikh Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib and is eighteen (18) years or over.” According to Plaintiffs, there are approximately fifty-two (52) individuals that meet this definition, but were not included in the membership list and would be denied the right to vote in the next election. They also assert that Defendants are proceeding in this fashion in an effort to maintain power over the religious institution. Defendants deny the aforementioned allegations in their entirety. They claim that the constitution was used upon the founding of Plaintiff GNDLI, but quickly fell out of use and was replaced by a different set of rules that had functioned for several years until recently, when the individual named Plaintiffs sought to regain control of the religious institution. Defendants also claim that it is the individual Plaintiffs that are seeking to add additional people to the membership list who do not meet the constitutional definition of members, in an effort to dilute the vote of the membership and regain power. It is the position of Defendants that certain individuals, although donors to the institution, cannot be considered true members since they do not practice the teachings of Sikhism; moreover, Defendants assert that this Court is unable to hear the issues raised in the complaint and these moving papers, as they require this Court to make findings that are religious in nature and not secular. On a motion seeking a preliminary injunction, the burden of proof is on the movant to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the prospect of irreparable injury if the relief is withheld, and a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor. Gagnon Bus Co., Inc. v. Vallo Transportation, Ltd., 13 AD3d 334, 786 NYS2d 107 (2nd Dept., 2004). Moreover, preliminary injunctive relief is a drastic remedy which will not be granted unless a clear right thereto is established under the law and the undisputed facts upon the moving papers, and the burden of showing an undisputed right rests upon the movant. Blake Agency v. Leon, 283 AD2d 423, 723 NYS2d 871 (Mem) (2nd Dept., 2001). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties. Shake Shack Fulton Street Brooklyn, LLC v. Allied Property Group LLC, 177 AD3d 924, 112 NYS3d 196 (2nd Dept., 2019). The First Amendment forbids civil courts from interfering in or determining religious disputes, because there is substantial danger that the state will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrines or beliefs. Russian Orthodox Convent Novo-Diveevo, Inc. v. Sukharevskaya, 166 AD3d 1036, 91 NYS3d 101 (2nd Dept., 2018). In the instant case, it is unclear before the Court whether or not the approximately fifty-two individuals are being properly excluded from being considered voting members of Plaintiff GNDLI or if these individuals are not members whatsoever. It is not for this Court to decide the definition of a Sikh, nor is this Court inclined to insert its opinion on such matters not considered secular in nature. See generally Congregation of Yetev Lev D’ Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 31 AD3d 541, 820 NYS2d 62 (2nd Dept, 2006). Rather, this Court finds that it can indeed resolve the issue of a preliminary injunction based solely on the application of neutral principles of law and will do so hereafter. Preservation of the status quo is necessary while the parties continue to litigate their non-religious issues presented in this case and possibly attempt to resolve their differences for the betterment of Plaintiff GNDLI, including the amici who are greatly affected by this controversy. To that end, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden and find that risk of prejudice to those fifty-two individuals currently being denied the right to vote in an election of officers for their religious institution far outweighs the need for a new election to take place. It should be noted that under the constitution, elections were to be held in January of odd number years, making the instant election sufficiently late that further delay cannot be deemed to prejudice Defendants, who are also the current officeholders, in any way. Accordingly, the portion of the order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction restraining Defendants from holding elections for officers is hereby granted in the discretion of this Court. See Arcamone-Makinano v. Britton Property,Inc., 83 AD3d 623, 920 NYS2d 362 (2nd Dept., 2011). The remaining portions of the order to show cause, seeking the ultimate declaratory relief contained in the complaint while still in the early stages of this litigation, and all other requests for relief not specifically addressed in the foregoing, shall be deemed denied. Plaintiffs shall file and serve a copy of the within order with notice of entry upon Defendants within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Thereafter, in light of the Answer and Reply that have been subsequently filed and accepted by the clerk’s office through the NYSCEF system, the parties shall complete a preliminary conference stipulation and order in this action on or before December 17, 2020. Failure of the parties to comply with this directive and upload same to the NYSCEF system shall result in an appearance by both sides in the preliminary conference part of Supreme Court, Nassau County, on that date. This hereby constitutes the decision and order of this Court. Dated: August 25, 2020
