Jerome T. Dorfman, Parksville, for appellants. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York City (Daniel Milstein of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Stephan G. Schick, J.), entered May 16, 2023 in Sullivan County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Religious Corporations Law article 17 and RPAPL article 15, to, among other things, compel respondents to convey certain property to petitioner. The instant proceeding involves a property dispute regarding ownership of real property located in the hamlet of Kauneonga Lake, which is in the Town of Bethel, Sullivan County (hereinafter the subject property). The subject property contains, among other things, a church building used by respondent Kauneonga Lake Community United Methodist Church (hereinafter KLCUMC) as a place of worship in accordance with the teachings of the Methodist faith. After the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (hereinafter the national church) began reconsidering its views on human sexuality, disputes arose between KLCUMC and petitioner, the local annual conference of the national church. In January 2022, KLCUMC executed a declaration of trust purporting to place the subject property in a trust for the benefit of respondent Bethel Bible Ministries (hereinafter BBM), the name adopted by the same congregation in its attempt to disaffiliate with the national church. Upon learning of the declaration of trust, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to obtain possession and title of the subject property and to void said declaration. According to petitioner, pursuant to The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church (hereinafter the Book of Discipline), local churches affiliated with the national church were required to hold property in trust for the benefit of the national church. Respondents claimed that the property had always been owned by KLCUMC and that it neither created nor intended to create a trust for the benefit of petitioner. Following oral argument, Supreme Court found that KLCUMC held the property in trust for the benefit of petitioner and, as a result, KLCUMC had no authority to execute the declaration of trust for the benefit of BBM. Consequently, the court granted the petition, directed KLCUMC to convey title to petitioner and declared that BBM had no interest in the subject property. Respondents appeal. Generally, the First Amendment of the US Constitution[1] prohibits civil courts from interfering with, or deciding, religious disputes, lest courts risk becoming entangled in religious controversies or espousing a preference for any particular religious doctrine or belief over another (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 NY3d 282, 286 [2007]; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d 110, 116-117 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1037 [1984]). However, a court may adjudicate disputes involving religious entities as long as it relies on neutral principles of law (see Jones v. Wolf, 443 US 595, 602-603 [1979]; Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 NY3d at 286; First Presbyt. Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyt. Church in U.S. of Am., 62 NY2d at 120). In applying the neutral principles analysis to determine whether a trust has been created, “courts should focus on the language of the deeds, the terms of the local church charter, the State statutes governing the holding of church property, and the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property, taking special care to examine each of these documents in secular terms and not relying on religious precepts to determine whether the parties intended a particular result” (Trustees of Diocese of Albany v. Trinity Episcopal Church of Gloversville, 250 AD2d 282, 286 [3d Dept 1999] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 NY3d at 286). Here, it is undisputed that KLCUMC was incorporated in 1946 pursuant to Religious Corporations Law article 10 as “The Methodist Church of White Lake,” that the subject property was conveyed to it soon after and that the property deeds do not reflect an express trust provision. Respondents argue that our inquiry should end there, as reviewing the provisions of the Book of Discipline would require us to weigh into religious doctrine. We disagree, as it is possible to consider the relevant provisions of the Book of Discipline in a secular manner, without reference to any religious principles, to determine whether the parties manifested an intent to create a trust (see e.g. Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish, 11 NY3d 340, 351-352 [2008]; North Cent. N.Y. Annual Conference v. Felker, 28 AD3d 1130, 1131 [4th Dept 2006]; Trustees of Diocese of Albany v. Trinity Episcopal Church of Gloversville, 250 AD2d at 288-290; compare Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 NY3d at 287-288). Pursuant to the Book of Discipline, the insignia of “United Methodist” is reserved for institutions dedicated to the work of the national church (see Book of Discipline 2502; see also Religious Corporations Law § 321-a). The Book of Discipline requires that all property owned by a local church be held in trust for the benefit of the national church, and it provides the language that local churches should include in property deeds for such purpose (see Book of Discipline
