Key Points

  • The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal of a petition under Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 618 to set aside a pastoral election at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in the City of New York.
  • Reading Article VII, Sections 1 and 7 of the church bylaws together, the court held that a pastor is elected by a majority of votes cast at a duly convened meeting with a quorum, not by a majority of all eligible members.
  • Allegations of confusion caused by a Pastoral Search Committee member's statements, the failure to reconvene a disrupted special meeting and other irregularities were held conclusory and speculative.
  • The court found no showing of fraud or wrongdoing and no substantial likelihood that the election's outcome was affected, noting that no affidavit showed any member changed a vote because of the alleged conduct.
  • The affirmance was without costs.

A New York appeals court on Thursday refused to revive a challenge to a pastoral election at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in the City of New York, holding that the church's bylaws require a candidate to win a majority of the votes cast at a properly convened meeting, not a majority of every member eligible to vote.

A four-justice panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order by Justice James G. Clynes of State Supreme Court in New York County, entered on or about Dec. 23, 2025, that dismissed the petition. Kevin McGruder and the other petitioners had asked the courts to set the election aside. The panel's unsigned decision was joined by Justice Friedman, who presided, and Justices Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy and Parker-Raso.

The petitioners brought the case under Section 618 of New York's Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, seeking to set aside a pastoral election. The church and the other respondents moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), and Justice Clynes granted the motion.

On appeal, the panel held that the trial court "properly determined" that the petition "failed to state a claim for fraud, wrongdoing, or other irregularity warranting judicial intervention."

Much of the dispute turned on the wording of the church's governing rules. Article VII, Section 1 of the bylaws provides that the pastor "shall be called by the majority vote of the Members in Good Standing who are Eligible to Vote." The petitioners argued that the phrase required the winning candidate to secure the votes of a majority of all eligible members, not just a majority of those who cast ballots.

The panel rejected that reading by looking to another provision of the same article. Article VII, Section 7, the court wrote, contemplates that a pastoral candidate may be rejected by majority vote at a duly convened meeting where a quorum is present. That section further provides that another candidate will then be nominated "until one is elected."

Read together with Section 7, the panel held, Article VII, Section 1 "is properly read as requiring election by a majority of votes cast at such a meeting, and not—as petitioners urge—by a majority of all eligible members."

The petitioners also contended that the conduct of the election itself was flawed. According to the decision, they alleged that statements by a member of the church's Pastoral Search Committee caused confusion, that a special meeting was disrupted and never reconvened, and that other irregularities occurred. Together, they argued, those problems created a substantial likelihood of error affecting the election.

The panel found those claims "are conclusory and speculative." The allegations, the court wrote, "do not show fraud or wrongdoing within the meaning of Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 618 or establish a substantial likelihood that the outcome of the election was affected."

For that standard, the panel cited its own 2022 decision in Matter of Striltschuk v. Hryckowian and a 1971 decision, Matter of Goldfield Corp. v. General Host Corp.

The court pointed to a gap in the petitioners' evidence. "None of the affidavits submitted by petitioners demonstrate that any member altered their voting behavior based on the alleged conduct, nor do the allegations otherwise rise above conjecture," the panel wrote.

The decision does not name the candidate who was elected, give the vote totals or describe what the search committee member said. It also does not state when the disrupted special meeting took place.

Lawyers for the petitioners included Henry M. Mascia of Rivkin Radler LLP. The church and the other respondents were represented by Brian Pete of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

The appeal, No. 7478, was decided and entered on Nov. 12. The affirmance leaves Justice Clynes's dismissal of the petition in place, and the panel awarded no costs to either side. The decision, reported as 2026 NY Slip Op 06576, is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.