Natoli v Milazzo
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 3, 2005
Supreme Court, Kings County
Vincent E. Natoli, OFM and THE OLD ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF ST. LUCY'S, Plaintiff,
against
Louis Elias Milazzo, John Doe, et al., and ALBERT BERUBE, Defendants.
38555/04
Yvonne Lewis, J.
The plaintiffs have moved this court for an order restraining the defendants from entering the Cathedral Church of St. Lucy's and other buildings, located at 802 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, and interfering in any way with their entry, use, and occupancy of said church premises for religious and other church related purposes. The plaintiffs' contend that upon the death of the Church's former pastor [Vincent Peter Crisci], the defendants seized control of the subject property and have, by force or intimidation, including changing the locks to the premises, excluded them; to wit, Father Vincent E. Natoli, the Vicar-General who rightfully succeeded Crisci as per church regulations, his priests, and members of the congregation. The plaintiffs attached a copy of St. Lucy stationery evincing that the College of Bishops declared Father Natoli to be ". . .the canonical and lawful successor to the late Archbishop-Metropolitan, the Most Revernd Vincent P. Crisci. . . .that Louis Milazzo and Albert Berube have no standing in the Arch-disocese. . .and that their present acts [of] interfering with the operations of the cathedral Church of St. Lucy. . .is a violation of the joint Constitution and By-Laws of the Old Roman Catholic Church. . ." A copy of said joint Constitution and By-Laws [dated the 28th day of October, 2000 and signed by Metropolitan-Archbishop Crisci and attested to by Vicar General Natoli] was also furnished. Article vi thereof specifically notes that "[t]he college of Bishops (comprised of the Archbishop-Metropolitan and Vicar General, who are appointed for life, and one other Bishop who is elected for one year by the hierarchy) shall have general jurisdiction over themselves in all church matters, elect or confirm the successor to the Office of Archbishop-Metropolitan." Article x reads that "[t]he Archbishop-Metropolitan is recognized as the Spiritual and Temporal Head of the Archdiocese and the Cathedral Church. . . .also known as Primate. . . . shall have full and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire Archdiocese and the Cathedral Church of St. Lucy in all matters: Ecclesiastical, Civil, and Temporal. As Primate, the Archbishop-Metropolitan may confer such titles upon the Clergy and others as he deems fit from time to time. His powers shall be in conformity with our own laws. He may by special decree enlarge his own powers from time to time subject to the approval by the Supreme Episcopal Council. The Vicar General shall assume full governing authority in all matters ecclesiastical, [*2]civil, and temporal, in the event of the death or incapacitation of the Archbishop-Metropolitan. These powers shall remain in effect until the election or confirmation of a successor to the Office of Archbishop-Metropolitan. He shall call a meeting of the College of Bishops to elect or confirm the appointment of the new Archbishop-Metropolitan"
The defendants cross-moved for an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(2), or, in the alternative, granting summary judgment in their favor pursuant to CPLR §3212. The defendants' application is premised on the fact that the within matter is a religious dispute over which this court can have no jurisdiction. More specifically, the defendants assert that it is the rightful Metropolitan Archbishop of the Americas of the Old Roman Catholic Church under the See of Caer-Glow who has control over St. Lucy's, and that the Parish Advisory Board, the parishioners, and the Primate (who is the worldwide supreme leader of the Old Roman Catholic Church; the equivalent of the Pope in the Roman Catholic religion) do not recognize Father Natoli as the successor to the prior church pastor. The defendants highlight the fact that on or about June 24, 2004, Archbishop Crisci appointed Father Louis Elias Milazzo pastor of St. Lucy's; then on August 13, 2004, Archbishop Crisci appointed Father Milazzo his coadjutor with right of succession, thereby naming him as his successor; and, thereafter, on December 12, 2004, Primate Steptoe (of England) confirmed Father Milazzo as Metropolitan Archbishop in a ritual ceremony in England. The defendants additionally furnished a series of exhibits documenting Father Millazo's involvement and acknowledged succession at St. Lucy's; to wit, a letter from Ms. Freddie Hamilton, the executive director of the Head Start Program housed in the church's basement with regards to Father Millazo's handling of said program's fifteen year lease; a letter from Connecticut attorney Ioannis Kalidis, attesting to having witnessed documents acknowledging Father Natoli's elevation and subsequent succession; a letter from the church's insurance broker as to Father Milazzo's handling of the church's insurance; a letter from attorney William Terranova to the effect that Father Milazzo has been overseeing the church's renovation; church documents referencing Father Milazzo's role at St. Lucy's; police complaint reports and a jury summons addressed to Father Milazzo at the subject church; an Old Roman Catholic Constitution [dated the 1st day of March, 2000, with no signature page], "issued on authority of the Primate," which at paragraph 6.7 notes that the "Metropolitan shall be appointed by the Primate at his sole discretion;" and, finally, a letter from Primate Steptoe acknowledging the affidavits attesting to Father Milazzo's elevation and succession in the church.
In opposition to the just discussed cross-motion, and in further support of its order to show cause, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit purportedly executed by Father Milazzo and acknowledged by Father Cresci for St. Lucy's and Father Natoli for Sacred Heart of Jesus English Rite Catholic Church, in September, 2000, to the effect that Father Milazzo disclaimed any standing in the ecclesiastical affairs of St. Lucy (past, present, and future). It is to be noted, however, that said affidavit bears no notary's stamp or signature. In addition, the plaintiffs point out that pursuant to St. Lucy's certificate of Incorporation, the Board of Trustees controls, operates, and manages the church's real property and may only dispose of or transfer title thereto subject to Article V of the General Corporation Law of the State of New York. St. Lucy's Board of Trustees, comprised of Bishops Natoli, Pasquale, and Francone has never deeded St. Lucy to the defendants, nor have the defendants provided any documentation that their claimed [*3]ownership has been confirmed by the Supreme Court pursuant to §511 of the New York Not-for-Profit Corporations Law and §12 of the New York Religious Corporation Law. In addition, the plaintiffs assert that "[b]y no stretch of the imagination does defendants' reference to 'spiritual jurisdiction' gives (sic) ownership and control of St. Lucy's church property in New York to a "Primate" or to a 'Primatial See of Caer-Glow' in England." In support of that contention, the plaintiffs cite Article xi of the joint General Constitution and By-Laws of St. Lucy as the authority for establishing that it "is strictly American, governed by American citizens and absolutely independent in all matters of discipline or church law." Finally, as proof that Father Milazzo is not a priest within its denomination, the plaintiffs attached exhibits (newspaper articles and transcripts) indicating that Father Milazzo had worked as the Maitre D' of Peter Lugers restaurant in the eighties (1982 to 1989), and had been involved in litigation (in 1994) regarding his misappropriation of funds (over $200,000.00) from the Polish National Catholic Church, in the course of which he never identified himself as a member of St. Lucy's, but rather as being the Archbishop for the Greek Old "Calendarists" (phonetic) in Athens. The New York Post reported in 1994 that "Police and the City Consumer Affairs Department are probing Milazzo's role as operator of a casino at the San Gennaro feast in Little Italy. Milazzo is named on the casino license as chaplain and a director of the 'St. Ann's Society' in East Harlem. Authorities shut down the casino Monday after the Post found no records showing such an organization exists."
In further support of the plaintiffs position herein, particularly with regards to the representation that Archbishop Steptoe has no authority over St. Lucy's, Father Natoli directed the court's attention to a history of the Old Roman Catholic Church in America (available on the internet) which indicates that "on April 12, 1975, the Synod of the Old Roman Catholic Church Bishops in North America severed its relationship with the English Rite Old Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain." That history also indicates that "The Most Reverent John J. Humphreeys, DD," is the "Archbishop of Caer-Glow, Bishop of the Florida Diocese and Chairman of the Council." Said Archbishop Humphreeys, in turn, furnished an un-notarized letter in corroboration of the foregoing.
Finally, Father Milazzo submitted a reply wherein he asserts that his purported disclaimer is a forgery as attested to by document analysis expert, Vincent Parco (affidavit notarized by a Danielle M. Parco, but unsigned); that the Constitution allegedly signed by Archbishop Crisci evidencing Father Natoli's "proper procedural ascension to Metropolitan Archbishop in the province of the Americas" is inauthentic as evidenced by "registered handwriting expert and document examiner" Jean Peetz' letter (un-notarized); and, that "St. Lucy's Old Roman Catholic Church did not exist at 802 Kent Avenue until 1986, a full eleven years after the Canons [referenced by the plaintiffs] were supposedly written there." Father Milazzo concludes by reiterating that the verification to his claim as Metropolitan Archbishop is established by the various entities referenced in earlier exhibits, in contrast to Father Natoli who seeks to corroborate his claim thereto solely on the basis of un-notarized succession documents, with no sworn affidavit by anyone other than himself.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Rector, Churchwardens, and Vestrymen of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. Melish, 4 AD2d 256, 164 NYS2d 843, determined that "although the matter of selecting a clergyman for a church is ecclesiastical, it is within the [*4]province of a court to determine the dispute as to a given selection where. . .questions of control and management of temporalities will be settled by the determination of such disputed ecclesiastical matter." More specifically, a court can decide church disputes when it relies on neutral principles of law, provided there are "wholly secular legal rules whose application to religious parties or disputes does not entail theological or doctrinal evaluations,. . ." In addition, there must exist neutral facts to which to apply those rules, which consist of "evidence from which the court may discern the objective intention of the parties. . .[to wit] the language of. . .deeds, the terms of [a] local church charter. . .State statutes governing the holding of church property. . .[etc], . . .without resorting to matters of doctrine or dogma." (See Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 177 Misc2d 897, 677 NYS2d 436, quoting Elmora Hebrew Center, Inc v. Fishman, 125 NJ 404, 593 A2d 725; and First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyterian Church of the United States, 62 NY2d 110, 476 NYS2d 86).
"The Religious Corporation Law [RCL] is silent as to the method or procedure to be followed for the appointment of a pastor." (See Hayes v. Board of Trustees of the Deacons Board and Executive Board of Holy Trinity Baptist Church of Amityville, 225 NYS2d 316). RCL, Article 1 § 2, reads that "[t]he term 'clergyman' and the term 'minister' include a duly authorized pastor,
. . .a person having authority from or in accordance with the rules and regulations of the governing ecclesiastical body of the denomination or order, if any, to which the church belongs. Article 2 § 25 also provides that "no provision of this chapter authorizes the calling, settlement, dismissal or removal of a minister, . . .and a meeting of a church corporation for any purpose shall be called. . . and notice of such meeting given. . .and the qualification of the voters determined, not as required by any provision of this chapter but only according to the aforesaid laws and regulations, practice, discipline, rules and usages of the religious denomination or ecclesiastical governing body with which the church corporation is connected."
RCL Art. 2 § 5 establishes that the duly elected trustees of the corporation have "custody and control" of all the property of the [religious] corporation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, in the matter of New York District of Assemblies of God v. Calvary Assembly of God, 64 AD2d 311, 409 NYS2d 842), observed that New York State recognizes two classes of organizational control within religious corporations: congressional and hierarchical. A congregational church has been defined as an independent, self-governing organization, governed solely within itself, either by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government. (See Knight v. Presbytery of Western NY, 26 AD2d 19, aff'd 18 NY2d 868 and New York District of Assemblies of God v. Calvary Assembly of God, supra ). Hierarchical churches are those organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head (See New York District of Assemblies of God v. Calvary Assembly of God, supra , quoting Kerdoff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 US 94, 73 S. Ct. 143). The Third Department, in the just referenced matter, went on to note that in prior decisions it had relied on the constitution, regulations, history of subordinate and overseer churches (Second United Presbyt. Church of Johnstown , 35 AD2d 252, aff'd 28 NY2d 772), and upon historical factors (Conklin v. State of New York (284 App. Div. 193) to determine to which structure a church appertained. The court went on to stress the fact that "[t]he complexities of resolving this question are well stated in [*5]New York Jurisprudence (vol 49, Religious Societies, § 8): 'when investigating the law relative to religious societies and corporations, it is well to keep in mind the fact that churches and other religious societies are of many kinds and denominations, varying in the type or degree of their formal organization, as well as in their independence of or degree of connection with a particular or central church or denominational organization. Under some systems each church or religious society is an independent body, with a congregational form of government, not subject to the control of any higher ecclesiastical judicature, but a law unto itself, and self-governing in its religious functions; under other systems a local church is but a member of a larger and more important religious organization, and is under its government and control.'"
In the matter sub judice, the parties have not made resolution readily attainable. Each has advanced a series of "verifying" documents and/or acts in substantiation of its position. The "verifying" documents notwithstanding, this court is unable on the submissions made to determine the authenticity of the purported constitution, by-laws, canons, church letterhead/stationery, documents, internet site, and history proffered by the respective sides. In addition, the court is unable to verify the legitimacy of signatures and/or the authority of the various clergy within the church hierarchy mentioned by both sides. The qualifications of the alleged handwriting and documents experts are definitely suspect, not to mention the credibility of the parties themselves.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that issues of fact exist herein which can only be resolved at trial. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to this court for an order restraining the defendants from entering the Cathedral Church of St. Lucy's and other buildings, located at 802 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, and interfering in any way with their entry, use, and occupancy of said church premises for religious and other church related purposes is denied. The Defendants' cross-motion for an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR §3211 (a)(2), or, in the alternative, granting summary judgment in their favor pursuant to CPLR §3212 is likewise denied. In the interim, this court sees no other alternative but to appoint a receiver who shall be charged with the day to day operations of the church, including but not limited to auditing the books of the church, rendering an accounting of the same, arranging for services, determining who shall officiate, safekeeping and overseeing the church building, renovations thereto, and programs conducted therein. This constitutes the decision and order of this court. Settle Order on notice.
________________________________
JSC
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
