Opinion
Index No. 007016/2004
10-25-2023
Edward Kelley, a/k/a Adarsi Das, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., and Praghosa as Chairman for the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Plaintiffs, v. Nikhil Gupta, Amit Joshi, Krishna S. Kowlesar and Nathan Zakhiem, Defendant(s).
Plaintiff Edward Kelley a/k/a Adarsi Das, represented by La Reddola, Lester & Associates LLP. Plaintiff The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., and Praghosa as Chairman for the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, represented by Stepanovich Law, PLC. Defendant Nikhil Gupta, represented by Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates and Chittur Law Offices.
Unpublished Opinion
Plaintiff Edward Kelley a/k/a Adarsi Das, represented by La Reddola, Lester & Associates LLP.
Plaintiff The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., and Praghosa as Chairman for the Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, represented by Stepanovich Law, PLC.
Defendant Nikhil Gupta, represented by Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates and Chittur Law Offices.
DECISION AFTER NON -JURY TRIAL
HON. RHONDA E. FISCHER A.J.S.C.
This action was referred to the undersigned from the Calendar Control Part for a non-jury trial on consent of all parties. A non-jury trial was held on June 6, 2023, June 8, 2023, June 9, 2023, June 12, 2023, June 13, 2023, June 14, 2023, June 16, 2023, June 20, 2023, and June 21, 2023. The plaintiff, Edward Kelley a/k/a Adarsi Das, was represented by counsel, La Reddola, Lester & Associates, LLP. Plaintiffs, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "ISKCON, Inc.") and Revati Raman (as amended herein) as Chairman of The Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, a legal entity under the West Bengal, India, Societies Registration Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "GBC"), were represented by counsel, Stepanovich Law, PLC. Defendant Nikhil Gupta a/k/a Nimai Pandit Das was represented by counsel, Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Associates as well as Chittur Law Offices. While not originally named as a party to this action, a companion action against the defendant was joined with the instant action, and the instant action was subsequently dismissed as against the original defendants, leaving Mr. Gupta as the only defendant at trial.
The instant action involves an ongoing dispute between two factions of a religion, commonly known as the "Hare Krishna" movement, each seeking control of a temple located at 197 South Ocean Avenue, Freeport, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Freeport Temple"). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant improperly seized control of the Freeport Temple while engaging in religious activities contrary to the movement's teachings. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant refused to cease such forbidden activity, refused to abide by the determinations passed down by religious leaders, improperly scheduled an election without approval or authorization, and refused access to the plaintiffs despite their right to enter the Freeport Temple. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for trespass, corporate usurpation, and declaratory relief to clarify the parties' roles in ISKCON, Inc. The defendant asserts affirmative defenses including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to join necessary parties, and unclean hands. Upon resting their case at trial, the plaintiffs moved to amend their pleadings with regard to the caption, its request for declaratory judgment, and to add a request for equitable relief.
Undisputed Facts
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (hereinafter referred to as "ISKCON Global") is a worldwide religion that was founded by A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Swami Prabhupada (hereinafter referred to as the "Founder"), in 1966. At the outset, it is important to note the distinction between ISKCON Global, referring to the worldwide religion, and plaintiff ISKCON, Inc., the corporate entity that owns the Freeport Temple.
The Founder executed a document entitled "Direction of Management," dated July 28, 1970, for the purpose of establishing the GBC and describing its authority. In the Direction of Management, the Founder states "I am getting old... therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my disciples how they shall manage the whole institution." The Direction of Management notes that "[t]he purpose of the [GBC] is to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of [the Founder]." The Direction of Management further states that the GBC's purpose is to oversee "all operations and management" of the ISKCON Global religion.
The Founder additionally drafted a "Declaration of Will" that has been generally accepted by the GBC and ISKCON Global members. The Founder's Will begins by stating "[t]he [GBC] will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire [ISKCON Global]. Each temple will be an [ISKCON Global] property." The Founder ultimately passed away in 1977, at which point the GBC took on the role of central authority for ISKCON Global.
In 1980, the Freeport Temple was purchased. The deed of the Freeport Temple lists only ISKCON, Inc. as the owner of record. In 1982, ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws were amended to include the following language under the caption of "Governing Body Commission:"
"His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is the founder-acarya of the worldwide Krishna Consciousness Movement. His teachings and last will serve as the supreme spiritual authority in all matters for the members and adherents of the Krishna Consciousness Movement. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada established the Governing Body Commission (G.B.C.), the members of which are his authorized agents and executors of his teachings and last will. The G.B.C., an ecclesiastical organization, as a distinct body - independent of this Corporation, operating by its own rules and principles - was independently established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, as the instrument of his will, and meets annually in Mayapur in West Bengal, India. Its prime purpose is to see to the spiritual welfare of all the adherents of Krishna Consciousness all over the world, and for that purpose a local Governing Body Commissioner has been appointed to carry out this function in each area of the globe.
In relationship to this Corporation, the local G.B.C. Commissioner has the responsibility to see to the spiritual welfare of each individual devotee of Krishna Consciousness philosophy. He must be ready to advise and counsel each individual adherent as to how to make best progress on the path to Krishna Consciousness. He also has the responsibility to work closely with the members of the Board of Trustees and advise them in such a way that they will closely and enthusiastically adhere to the desires of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada."
In 1989, ISKCON, Inc. amended its bylaws again, including the following language under "Article III - Affiliation":
"Section 1. The Governing Body Commission (GBC) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is a body which meets annually at Sri Mayapur Candrodaya Mandir in District Nadia, West Bengal, India. The GBC was originally formed by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, and it is pledged to carry out his will and instructions. The GBC establishes ecclesiastical policy guidelines for the world-wide association of temples called the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.
Section 2. Relationship with ISKCON
The ISKCON, INC., although legally, financially, and managerially independent, shall not conduct itself in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical policies of ISKCON, as established by the GBC."
Among the changes made by the 1989 bylaws was a declaration that "all voting rights are vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporation only" and that "Congregational Members shall have no voting rights whatsoever." Additionally, the 1989 amendment to ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws state that, in order to authorize a relocation or sale of real property, the Board of Directors "must actively seek the approval of the Governing Body Commission, or a three man subcommittee of the GBC specifically empowered to advise on real property transactions."
The GBC has created rules and regulations by which ISKCON Global is to be conducted, which are compiled and referred to as the "ISKCON Law Book." The GBC additionally passes Resolutions annually, dating back to 1975, documenting its rulings on various issues pertaining to ISKCON Global members and temples. Section 10.4.4.4 of the ISKCON Law Book specifies that affiliates "must agree to irrevocably dedicate all of [their] assets to the purposes of ISKCON [Global]," and specifies that the GBC has veto power over any proposed transfers or encumbrances on real property. Section 10.4.4.4 additionally prohibits "alienation of [an affiliate's] real property without the expressed written consent of the GBC" and states that, in the event that an affiliation should be terminated, an affiliate must "immediately transfer its real property and other assets to a fully recognized affiliate of ISKCON [Global]." Section 10.4.4.6 of the ISKCON Law Book permits the GBC to "remove any of the directors or officers of [an] affiliate if it finds, in its sole discretion and judgment, that such directors or officers have caused the affiliate to significantly deviate from the ecclesiastical doctrines of ISKCON [Global]," or if they fail "to dedicate the assets of the affiliate to the purposes of ISKCON [Global]."
Over time, a division grew among followers, and the GBC articulated its stance on the issue in its 1990 Resolutions by declaring a "Prohibition Order Against the Posthumous Ritvik Theory." The GBC defines the "ritvik theory" as "[t]he doctrine that [the Founder] continues to initiate direct diksa disciples after his departure from this world through officiating priests (ritviks)." In the 1990 Resolutions, the GBC declared that "the posthumous ritvik initiation theory is a dangerous philosophical deviation. It is therefore totally prohibited in [ISKCON Global]." The GBC states that the ritvik theory "essentially conflicts with the law of disciplic succession" as provided by the Founder in his Direction of Management. Similarly, the GBC's 1999 Resolutions reaffirmed ISKCON Global's stance on the ritvik theory, and took note of certain ISKCON Global devotees who "have begun again to practice and preach a refurbished version of ritvikism." The 1999 Resolutions placed seven individuals who practiced ritvikism on probation for continuing the practice in violation of the 1990 Resolutions.
As the GBC passed Resolutions, and as ISKCON Global updated the ISKCON Law Book, Mr. Kelley remained involved in the Freeport Temple. Mr. Kelley became President of the Freeport Temple shortly after its purchase and oversaw the transition of ISKCON, Inc. from Manhattan to Freeport, as well as the 1982 and 1989 amendments to ISKCON, Inc's bylaws. However, Mr. Kelley ran a private business called Bonsai Designs out of the Freeport Temple which started to encounter financial issues. Mr. Kelley took out a mortgage encumbering the Freeport Temple in order to loan the proceeds to Bonsai Designs. A large balloon payment became due that Mr. Kelley was unable to pay. Mr. Kelley renegotiated this mortgage, but a payment in the amount of $10,000.00 was required, and he was unable to pay. Mr. Kelley approached the GBC for assistance, and the GBC agreed to make the $10,000.00 payment on the condition that Mr. Kelley resign as President. In connection with this agreement, Mr. Kelley submitted a letter, dated May 21, 1995, stating "[p]lease accept my resignation from any and all positions I have previously held as an officer of this corporation effective immediately."
The issues surrounding Mr. Kelley's mortgage continued to affect the Freeport Temple, and as a result, negatively impact Mr. Kelley's reputation with the practitioners. However, the GBC's 1998 Resolutions contain a section dedicated to Mr. Kelley, recognizing him as "a senior disciple of [the Founder] in good standing with [ISKCON Global]," apologizing for any unjust accusations of improprieties that had been made against him, and encouraging him and his family "to continue to give their very desired and important association to the ISKCON project in Freeport, Long Island."
Following Mr. Kelley's resignation, an individual named Harry Siegel was appointed as President. Mr. Siegel ultimately resigned, and thereafter the Freeport Temple was managed by Jose Santos as chairman and Goura Krishna as President.
At some point between 1998 and 2000, original defendant Viswa Garuda a/k/a Viswa Prana Dasa arrived at the Freeport Temple. Mr. Garuda became temple President in 2001. For the years of 2001, 2002, and 2003, during his presidency, Mr. Garuda completed and submitted an "Annual Report to GBC Body" on behalf of ISKCON, Inc.
In 2004, Mr. Garuda noticed an election for directors whereby all ISKCON, Inc. members would be permitted to vote for new directors. On the date of the election, Mr. Kelley appeared with numerous supporters, claiming that the election is contrary to the voting rules as per the 1989 amendments to the bylaws. The GBC sent representatives to the Freeport Temple in an attempt to resolve the issue, but its efforts were refuted by Mr. Garuda, and the representatives were ultimately denied access to the Freeport Temple. The instant action was filed and a temporary restraining order was granted. After some litigation ensued, the temporary restraining order was vacated, and Mr. Garuda noticed a new election which proceeded on or around February 20, 2005. As a result of this election, members of the Freeport Temple selected defendant Nikhil Gupta a/k/a Nimai Pandit Das as President. Mr. Gupta remained a trustee of ISKCON, Inc. as of the conclusion of the trial in this action.
Since this action was commenced, the GBC has filed numerous Resolutions specifically addressing the instant dispute and condemning the actions of Mr. Garuda and Mr. Gupta. The GBC's 2005 Resolutions declare that "[a]fter a thorough investigation, the GBC finds that Viswa B. Garuda has embraced and is actively propagating the ritvik doctrine in the [Freeport Temple] property." The GBC deemed Mr. Garuda to be "in flagrant violation of [ISKCON Global] Law... and as a direct result of such activities is no longer a member in good standing of [ISKCON Global]." The 2005 Resolutions additionally nullify the contested election, remove Mr. Garuda from his position as President and Director of the Freeport Temple, and direct Mr. Garuda and any others engaged in ritvik activity to vacate the Freeport Temple premises.
Similarly, the GBC's 2008 Resolutions expel the board members of ISKCON, Inc., including Mr. Gupta, from ISKCON Global due to their involvement in ritvik practices and name new trustees, including Mr. Kelley, for the board of directors of ISKCON, Inc. The 2008 Resolutions state, in relevant part, as follows:
• "Whereas the doctrine that [the Founder] desired to continue to act as diksa-guru after his departure from this world, and did not desire any of his disciples to give diksa, or initiation, in succession after him is an errant, philosophical deviation (known as ritvikism)";
• "Whereas the GBC has found it necessary to replace former officers and directors of [ISKCON, Inc.] (such as Viswa B. Garuda) because of their advocacy of the ritvik doctrine on ISKCON temple property";
• "Whereas after a thorough investigation, as well as information obtained in the ongoing litigation involving control and ownership of the [Freeport Temple], the GBC finds that persons asserting themselves to be members of the board of directors or trustees of [ISKCON Inc.] continue to actively espouse the ritvik doctrine, in direct defiance of the institutions of the GBC";
• "[A]s a direct result of such "ritvik activities" [the defendant is] no longer [a member] in good standing of [ISKCON Global]";
• "[The defendant is] hereby expelled from [ISKCON Global] and prohibited from having any involvement, or serving in any official or unofficial capacity, including, but not limited to, officers or directors of [ISKCON Inc.]";
• "The election in which [the defendant was] elected is hereby declared to be null and void";
• "[The defendant], and those acting with or in concert with [him] in the ritvik-related activities or in violation of the ISKCON laws described herein, shall, to the extent they have not already done so, vacate the [Freeport Temple] premises";
• "[The defendant] shall immediately take all steps necessary to return control of the [Freeport Temple] premises to the sole and exclusive control of the GBC."
Plaintiffs' Contentions
The plaintiffs request that this Court restore control over ISKCON, Inc. and the Freeport Temple to the GBC. The plaintiffs seek to establish that ISKCON Global is a hierarchical religion and that, as the ultimate authority of ISKCON Global, the GBC has the right to enter the Freeport Temple and may oversee and adjudicate local religious matters, including the instant dispute. The plaintiffs allege that security guards and physical barriers were posted to ensure that those loyal to the GBC were unable to participate in the 2005 election, and that Mr. Garuda and Mr. Gupta have continued to refuse any GBC attempts to gain access to the Freeport Temple. The plaintiffs add that, particularly as of the GBC Resolutions expelling Mr. Gupta, any permission or justification to remain in the Freeport Temple was revoked. As such, the plaintiffs request a finding that the defendant is trespassing on the plaintiffs' property and that he usurped the plaintiffs' corporate authority.
Among their claims, the plaintiffs argue that an express or implied trust exists whereby the Freeport Temple and any other property of ISKCON, Inc. is held for the benefit of ISKCON Global. The plaintiffs argue that ISKCON, Inc. at all times has existed as an affiliate of ISKCON Global and has adhered to the teachings and practices of the Founder and the GBC. Accordingly, the plaintiffs contend that ISKCON, Inc. is obeying the Founder's wishes by acknowledging the authority of the GBC while the defendant is conducting operations in a manner contrary to the GBC's policies. In light of the history of this dispute, the plaintiffs seek declaratory relief to confirm the GBC's authority over ISKCON, Inc. and to effectuate the removal of the defendant and any other ritvik practitioners from the Freeport Temple. The plaintiffs additionally seek equitable relief with regard to certain filings they allege were improperly made after the contested election as the defendant lacked authority to make such filings.
Defendant's Contentions
The defendant claims that none of the plaintiffs have standing. The defendant notes that Mr. Kelley resigned "from any and all positions" in 1995 and argues that he was entirely uninvolved in the Freeport Temple until the instant dispute arose. The defendant adds that Mr. Kelley was not named as a trustee of ISKCON, Inc. until 2008, which was after the commencement of the instant action. The defendant also contends that, as President at the time of commencement, Mr. Garuda represented ISKCON, Inc. As such, the defendant argues that ISKCON, Inc. should not be named as a plaintiff in this action since it was not controlled by Mr. Kelley or the GBC, and, if anything, it should be listed as a defendant. The defendant further alleges that the GBC referenced by the Founder's Direction of Management is a separate entity from the GBC referenced by ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws.
The defendant additionally argues that there has been no trespass. Mr. Gupta claims that, as President, he was justified and had permission to enter the Freeport Temple, and that ISKCON, Inc. never withdrew such permission. The defendant adds that there can be no relief for corporate usurpation, as it is not a cause of action, and there is no authority defining or outlining the proof required to make such a showing. Upon the foregoing, the defendant concludes that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaratory or equitable relief.
The defendant contends that the original bylaws of ISKCON, Inc., as well as all amendments, are void. As such, the defendant seeks a finding that the operations of ISKCON, Inc. are dictated by the default language provided by Religious Corporations Law Article 10. The defendant argues that the 1989 amendments to the bylaws are improper as they are contrary to the Religious Corporations Law and because Mr. Kelley obtained the approval of trustees through fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendant claims that, even if the 1989 amendments were properly adopted, the bylaws have been abandoned as ISKCON, Inc. failed to adhere to them or use them in its daily operations.
The defendant further claims that there is no trust holding ISKCON, Inc. property for the benefit of ISKCON Global. The defendant points to the Certificate of Incorporation for ISKCON, Inc., the deed for the Freeport Temple, and the ISKCON Law Book, noting that there is no specific mention of a trust. The defendant avers that the Freeport Temple was purchased without any funding from the GBC, and that ISKCON, Inc. is not an affiliate of ISKCON Global.
The defendant adds that the plaintiffs have unclean hands, noting that the GBC was aware of malfeasance being committed by Mr. Kelley and failed to intervene. Instead, it was Mr. Garuda and members of the Freeport Temple congregation who contributed the funds to clear the mortgage taken out by Mr. Kelley. The defendant argues that the GBC's failure to take action with regard to Mr. Kelley's mortgage demonstrates that it either lacked authority over the Freeport Temple or that it wrongfully took part in Mr. Kelley's actions.
Relevant Testimony
The first witness called by the plaintiffs was Paul Tombleson. Mr. Tombleson stated that he is the founder, President, Director of Preservation, and Head Archivist of the Bhaktivedanta Archives Corporation. Since 1977, Mr. Tombleson has collected documents relating to ISKCON Global, including the Founder's personal records. Mr. Tombleson described the process by which this entity gathers, indexes, and archives documents as well as his familiarity with the origins of such documents and the Founder's signature. Mr. Tombleson confirmed the authenticity of the Founder's signature on various documents including the Direction of Management and the Founder's Will.
The plaintiffs then called Dr. Howard Resnick. Dr. Resnick was personally initiated into the ISKCON Global religion by the Founder in 1970. The Founder appointed Dr. Resnick to the GBC in 1974, where he initially managed temples across Latin America and was later assigned to the southeastern United States. Dr. Resnick also served as President of two ISKCON Global temples. Dr. Resnick described the origins of the ISKCON Global religion, based on ancient traditions dating back to Sanskritic Hinduism thousands of years ago, up through the establishment of ISKCON Global by the Founder in 1966. Dr. Resnick affirmed that ISKCON, Inc. was the very first incorporated entity within ISKCON Global.
Dr. Resnick testified that the Founder's central focus was on translating ancient texts so they could distribute and teach them to the public. Dr. Resnick explained that ISKCON Global was always managed in a hierarchical fashion, with the Founder having final approval of all religious decisions from its inception in 1966 until his death. In its early days, the Founder was able to personally oversee all of ISKCON Global's operations as the religion was small at that time. As the movement grew, it became impractical for the Founder to continue overseeing everything, so he created the GBC for the purpose of channeling his authority and managing local projects. The Founder created a structure whereby the GBC had ultimate authority internationally, and GBC members would be assigned to handle regional issues with local authorities. Dr. Resnick explained the process by which GBC Resolutions were introduced and passed, noting that they would be presented to the Founder for final approval while he was alive. Generally, the Founder grew to trust the GBC to manage ISKCON Global affairs without any personal involvement. Dr. Resnick testified that the Founder drafted his Will because he had a terminal illness and wanted to document his previously stated intention to have the GBC assume full responsibility over ISKCON Global upon his death.
Dr. Resnick testified about the Founder's stance on local temples. The Founder rejected one devotee's attempt to open a temple as private property of his family, stating in a letter "[i]f you want to keep it a private property, then the ISKCON name should not be utilized." When another devotee wished to open an ISKCON Global temple under an umbrella corporation, the Founder likewise rejected this notion. Dr. Resnick additionally described the GBC's stance on ritvikism. He testified that while not at issue while the Founder was alive, the GBC determined that ritvik practice was a deviation from teachings that had been preserved for thousands of years. When ritviks refused to cease these practices, the GBC passed its 1990 Resolutions declaring that ritviks could no longer be members or participate in ISKCON Global.
On cross examination, Dr. Resnick was asked about a sixty-page essay he had written which included certain issues he had articulated about the GBC. Dr. Resnick distinguished the type of criticism that he or anyone may have had for a legitimate governmental body as a kind of normal political discourse as opposed to claiming that such a governmental body is illegitimate. Dr. Resnick stated that his lengthy essay only confirmed the authority and legitimacy of the GBC, and that any perceived criticism in his writings was merely a result of his efforts to help the GBC improve its rules by promoting formal laws rather than ancient customs. Dr. Resnick also distinguished a certain use of the word "ritvik," which was temporarily used during the Founder's life to refer to permission the Founder had granted to certain leaders so they could perform initiations while the Founder was terminally ill and unable to do initiations himself. Dr. Resnick, however, testified that this informal usage of the term did not mean that the Founder ever approved of the type of "ritvikism" banned by the GBC, whereby individuals could become his disciples posthumously.
The plaintiffs called Janine Vassallo, paralegal for plaintiff's counsel's law firm. Ms. Vassallo testified that she performed searches of the New York State Department of Corporations for Ayuryoga Inc., and Kottakkal Ayur Therapies Inc., in 2016. Ms. Vassallo also visited the website for Kottakkal Ayur Therapies Inc. and found that the defendant was CEO of these two corporations and that they were both operating out of the Freeport Temple premises. Ms. Vassallo purchased items from these corporations and noted that the shipping label used the Freeport Temple as the return address.
The plaintiffs then called Asiem Sethi a/k/a Ananda Tirtha Das. Mr. Sethi has been the Corresponding Secretary for the GBC since 2007. Mr. Sethi's role involves general correspondence as well as attending GBC meetings, recording the minutes, and compiling GBC Resolutions to publish on the website. Mr. Sethi described the GBC's annual meetings and the process by which it collects, reviews, and passes proposed Resolutions. Mr. Sethi was trained by the previous Secretary, and he confirmed that he follows the same procedures with regard to compiling and publishing ISKCON Global's laws. Mr. Sethi's testimony provided a foundation for the admission of the GBC's business records, including the ISKCON Law Book and various GBC Resolutions.
The plaintiffs called Dr. Ravi Gupta, a professor for Utah State University, as an expert witness on the topic of the structure of ISKCON Global. Dr. Gupta teaches courses on topics including Hinduism, World Religions, and Hindu Sacred Texts. Dr. Gupta has authored or edited four books and numerous articles on religions, including ISKCON Global. Dr. Gupta opined that ISKCON Global meets the criteria of a religion based on its system of beliefs, system of practices, and organized community of practitioners. Dr. Gupta added that ISKCON Global "is a hierarchical religion that is organized with a clear hierarchy going all the way up to the [GBC]." Accordingly, Dr. Gupta concluded that, during the Founder's lifetime, he created a succession plan to pass authority on to the GBC after his death rather than to another individual. Dr. Gupta testified that local temples make their own decisions on a day to day basis, but the GBC has the authority to become involved and overrule local temples, particularly if such temples go against the GBC's principles or doctrines. Dr. Gupta opined that the ISKCON Law Book, as updated annually by GBC Resolutions, creates canon law for the ISKCON Global tradition. Dr. Gupta added that the GBC used the authority to become a self-perpetuating entity, in order to structure itself according to the Founder's wishes. Dr. Gupta specifically opined that the GBC had authority to discipline Mr. Garuda and the defendant for propounding ritvik philosophy. Dr. Gupta also noted that the bylaws of ISKCON, Inc. are subordinate to the laws and Resolutions of the GBC, and that ISKCON Inc.'s bylaws expressly offered such authority to the GBC. Dr. Gupta concluded that the Freeport Temple is a temple of ISKCON Global and that the GBC had ultimate authority to remove and expel the defendant.
The plaintiffs additionally called Brian Rumbaugh to testify. He testified that he was initiated into ISKCON Global in 1971 or 1972 by the Founder. Mr. Rumbaugh was appointed as President of ISKCON Inc. by a GBC Zonal Secretary, serving in 1977 and 1978. He added that he served on the GBC for many years, including as Regional Secretary for New England States from 1978 to 1980, as GBC representative for the Freeport Temple from 1992 to 1996, and as chairman of the worldwide GBC for the years of 2009 and 2010. Mr. Rumbaugh described the structure of the GBC and his responsibilities as a member and chairman of the GBC. He testified that in around 1980 he was asked by the GBC to return to ISKCON, Inc. to again serve as President and assist with various issues. Mr. Rumbaugh stated that, as President, he signed ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws, which were designed in compliance with the GBC's standards. He testified that based on his experience from within both entities - the GBC and ISCON, Inc. - ISKCON, Inc. was accountable to the GBC and was compliant with ISKCON Global's directions and the ISKCON Law Book.
While serving as GBC representative for the Freeport Temple, Mr. Rumbaugh learned that a prior GBC representative had approved of Mr. Kelley's mortgage. Mr. Rumbaugh confirmed on cross examination that a mortgage could not be taken out on the Freeport Temple property without GBC approval. Due to the financial issues relating to Mr. Kelley's mortgage, the idea of closing the Freeport Temple was suggested. Mr. Rumbaugh testified that he brought up this proposal at the GBC's 1996 annual meeting. Ultimately, a group of Freeport Temple members agreed to resolve the mortgage issue, and Mr. Rumbaugh was replaced as GBC representative.
Mr. Rumbaugh described the steps taken by the GBC to address the Freeport Temple when the instant dispute occurred, noting the 2005 Resolutions and Mr. Garuda's refusal to comply. Mr. Rumbaugh added that the GBC's 2006 and 2008 Resolutions directed that the defendant restore the Freeport Temple to the GBC and expelled the defendant from ISKCON Global. Still, Mr. Garuda and the defendant refused to comply. Mr. Rumbaugh stated that the 2008 Resolutions additionally named trustees for ISKCON, Inc., including Mr. Kelley, in order to restore ISKCON Inc's original position, "being that ISKCON Inc. is under the authority of the GBC."
Next, Edward Kelley testified. He testified that he was initiated into ISKCON Global in 1974. In 1975, Mr. Kelley asked the Founder's permission to open a temple on Long Island, and such permission was given. Mr. Kelley described efforts which ultimately resulted in the Freeport Temple's purchase. Mr. Kelley stated that he contributed $15,000 while other funds were provided by a local congregation member as well as an existing ISKCON Global temple. The property's deed listed ISKCON, Inc. as owner. Mr. Kelley confirmed that the GBC approved of the purchase of the Freeport Temple. Mr. Kelley averred that, after the Freeport Temple was opened in the early 1980's, he was temple President and accountable to the GBC. Mr. Kelley considered the Freeport Temple to be a faithful part of ISKCON Global, under the direction and control of the GBC.
Mr. Kelley described the process by which he oversaw amendments to ISKCON Inc.'s bylaws and procured the resignation of trustees of ISKCON Inc., such that new trustees could be named. Mr. Kelley stated that the 1982 bylaws allowed for voting by members, which created a concern as some growing ISKCON Global congregations sought to change the worship. In order to preserve religious traditions and teachings, Mr. Kelley sought to amend the bylaws of ISKCON Inc. to allow only trustees to vote. Mr. Kelley explained that, in addition to restricting voting, the purpose of amending ISKCON Inc.'s bylaws in 1989 included to formally acknowledge the GBC's authority.
Mr. Kelley testified that he inquired with the GBC about the process for approval to take out the mortgage on the Freeport Temple premises. Mr. Kelley stressed that he understood the need for GBC approval and that such approval was provided by the GBC for the purposes of his loan. However, Mr. Kelley and his business struggled financially, and he was unable to afford a balloon payment that came due in 1994. Mr. Kelley stated that he approached the GBC to advise of a potential restructure of the loan, and a GBC representative agreed to make a payment in exchange for his resignation. By letter dated May 21, 1995, Mr. Kelley resigned as President of the Freeport Temple. Mr. Kelley added that his replacement, Harry Siegel, sought GBC approval to close the Freeport Temple, but Mr. Kelley opposed that, and the GBC ultimately denied this request after giving it full consideration in 1996.
Mr. Kelly testified that in 2004, he became aware of the contested election by the congregation, which was contrary to ISKCON Inc.'s bylaws. Mr. Kelley also noted that possible new trustees were known followers of the ritvik philosophy and opposed to the authority of the GBC. Mr. Kelley alerted the GBC, and representatives were sent to meet with Mr. Garuda, who was temple President at the time. The GBC representatives were unsuccessful in resolving the issue. Mr. Kelley claimed that Mr. Garuda initially told the GBC that he would not hold the election, only to send another notice of election shortly thereafter. At this point, Mr. Garuda would not allow any GBC representative into the Freeport Temple. For the contested election, security guards and other physical deterrents were placed to ensure that nobody loyal to the GBC could attend.
Mr. Kelley testified that under the defendant's control, the Freeport Temple is not promoting the Founder's philosophy and has become openly hostile to the GBC. In spite of this, Mr. Kelley noted that the Freeport Temple continues to hold itself out as an ISKCON Global entity. Mr. Kelley presented a photograph he had taken of the Freeport Temple in November of 2022, that depicted a sign stating "ISKCON Hare Krishna Temple Founder A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada."
On cross examination, the defendant raised issues with the process by which Mr. Kelley went about procuring the 1989 amendments to the ISKCON Inc. bylaws, noting the lack of evidence of adherence to certain corporate formalities. Mr. Kelley reaffirmed that the 1989 amendment to the bylaws intended to restrict voting such that congregation members would not have a vote.
The plaintiffs next called Jose Santos. Mr. Santos has been a member of ISKCON Global since 1976. Mr. Santos served as President of an ISKCON Global temple in Latin America from 1982 through 1986 and attended GBC meetings. In January of 1987, Mr. Santos traveled to the Freeport Temple, where he began to work with Mr. Kelley and assisted in computerizing records of ISKCON Inc. Mr. Santos left to live in Detroit, Michigan, where he became President of a local ISKCON Global temple, before returning to New York in 1990, at which point he attended ISKCON Global's Brooklyn temple. Mr. Santos confirmed that each of the temples he attended were under the authority of the GBC.
Mr. Santos ultimately moved back to Freeport in 1992 and eventually was elected as Chairman of the Board of the Freeport Temple. Mr. Santos testified that he sent annual reports to the GBC. He also sent financial information and information about the Freeport Temple property when requested by the GBC. Mr. Santos was aware of the loan taken out by Mr. Kelley, and requested GBC assistance with regard to this loan. Mr. Santos' ongoing communications with the GBC were based on his understanding that the GBC was the ultimate authority. Mr. Santos stated that he had the same experience with the GBC from his position at the Freeport Temple as he did in Latin America and Detroit. Mr. Santos joined Mr. Kelley's efforts to prevent the closure of the Freeport Temple, communicating with the GBC about his position as well as proposed donors who were willing to assist with the financial difficulties. Mr. Santos described a letter whereby the GBC informed him that, after a vote, it had determined that the Freeport Temple could stay open as long as it remained financially healthy. Mr. Santos respected these conditions as per the GBC's ultimate authority.
Mr. Santos stated that his and Goura Krishna's terms as Chairman of the Board and President of ISKCON, Inc. ended in 2000, when Mr. Garuda became President. Mr. Santos testified that, in his dealings with Mr. Garuda and Mr. Gupta, he was given the impression that they were hostile toward the GBC.
The plaintiffs called Joshua Greene to testify. He testified that he was initiated into ISKCON Global in 1970 and spent time traveling with the Founder. Mr. Greene served as President of temples in Paris and Philadelphia, and attended the Freeport Temple in the early 2000s. Mr. Greene is a member of the "ISKCON Resolve Program" which provides a form of alternative dispute resolution for conflicts within ISKCON Global. When the issue surrounding the contested election arose, the GBC asked Mr. Greene (via Mr. Rumbaugh) to go to the Freeport Temple to meet with Mr. Garuda and Mr. Gupta after the GBC's previous attempts to resolve the issue had reached an impasse. Mr. Greene testified that the defendant disagreed with the GBC and indicated that he had a better understanding of the Founder's intentions than the GBC. Mr. Greene's efforts to mediate the instant dispute were unsuccessful.
The plaintiffs additionally called Melanie Nagel to testify. Ms. Nagel testified that she was initiated into ISKCON Global by the Founder in 1967, and has served as a member of the GBC since 1998. Ms. Nagel is currently responsible for an area covering Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, northern Kentucky and western Pennsylvania. Ms. Nagel's role as a GBC representative included meeting with ritvik practitioners and warning them that preaching ritvikism out of ISKCON Global temples constitutes trespassing. When the instant dispute arose in 2004, Ms. Nagel was asked to visit the Freeport Temple and meet with the defendant and Mr. Garuda. Ms. Nagel initially wrote letters to Mr. Garuda, advising that she sought to ensure the Freeport Temple did not deviate from the ecclesiastical policies of the Founder. Ms. Nagel testified that upon meeting with the defendant and Mr. Garuda, she attempted to reach a cordial resolution whereby the Founder's spiritual standards would be upheld. Ms. Nagel stated that the defendant was dismissive and rejected her efforts to resolve the instant dispute.
Bhaktarupa Das testified for the plaintiffs as well. Mr. Das testified that he was initiated into ISKCON Global in 1973. He served as President of ISKCON Global's Brooklyn temple from 1982 to 1985 and served as secretary of the GBC from 1988 until approximately 1995. Mr. Das has worked for the GBC's property office since the 1990s and is currently a member of a GBC group called "the deputies," which helps the GBC process legislation. Mr. Das received and processed the annual reports submitted on behalf of the Freeport Temple by Mr. Garuda while President of ISKCON, Inc.
The plaintiffs' next witness was Geoffrey Walker, a GBC representative who was initiated into ISKCON Global by the Founder in 1972. Mr. Walker served as President of two ISKCON Global temples and was appointed to that role by the GBC. Mr. Walker described his role with the GBC as assuring the philosophy is maintained properly. Mr. Walker discussed the GBC's Resolutions which found that the defendant deviated from ISKCON Global teachings. Mr. Walker also testified as to sections of the ISKCON Law Book regarding affiliate properties as well as removal and replacement of officers who are found to have deviated from the Founder's teachings. Mr. Walker confirmed that ISKCON, Inc. "was the original corporation of ISKCON [Global]" and was under the authority of the GBC. Mr. Walker noted that, while ritviks are entitled to freedom of religion, it does not mean they can practice ritvik theory in an ISKCON Global temple.
Defendant Nikhil Gupta a/k/a Nimai Pandit testified on his own behalf at trial. Mr. Gupta stated that he had an epiphany and began contemplating the meaning of life, which lead him to begin reading the Founder's books. Mr. Gupta testified that he joined the temple in Bangalore India, where he eventually learned of spiritual corruption that was taking place. Mr. Gupta claimed that the GBC's gurus proclaimed themselves to be gods and wanted to be worshipped, and he felt they were behaving in a manner contrary to the Founder's teachings. Mr. Gupta added that these gurus began creating disturbances, which caused him to leave the Bangalore temple. Because of his feelings about the GBC gurus, Mr. Gupta attended a temple in Bombay where he found others who believed a philosophy that the Founder's teachings are "sitting in everyone's heart," rather than found by worshiping gurus. Mr. Gupta stated that, when people came to know that he did not follow the system of guru worshiping, it became a big issue and he was forced to leave the Bombay temple.
Mr. Gupta further testified that he became inspired by the Founder's decision to travel to New York when he initially sought to spread his teachings. Mr. Gupta moved to New York in 2000 in order to follow the Founder's footsteps. Mr. Gupta attended a temple in Manhattan where he found others "preaching that you don't need to surrender to these gurus... and you can take shelter in the teachings of [the Founder]." Mr. Gupta developed a traveling sankirtan party whereby he introduced a new chant that followers could use without the need for guidance from gurus. Mr. Gupta believed that he was following the Founder's example by doing what the Founder had done.
Mr. Gupta's travels included visiting the Freeport Temple as far back as 2001. Again, in 2004, Mr. Gupta traveled from India to New York. During the 2004 trip, Mr. Gupta asked Mr. Garuda if he could stay at the Freeport Temple as it was near the airport. While Mr. Gupta was there, Mr. Garuda suggested that Mr. Gupta continue his stay at the Freeport Temple rather than opening a new temple elsewhere. Mr. Gupta agreed upon being informed by Mr. Garuda that "there is no GBC" at the Freeport Temple. Mr. Gupta consulted with a lawyer, who reviewed ISKCON, Inc.'s Certificate of Incorporation and determined that the GBC was not mentioned. Mr. Gupta additionally met with members of the Freeport Temple, who he said were in agreement about not wanting to be affiliated with the GBC due to its corruption.
Mr. Gupta testified that it became clear that the congregation wanted him to take over from Mr. Garuda. The contested election was then scheduled, at which time Mr. Kelley, Mr. Greene, and Ms. Nagel led a group who disrupted the contested election. The election did not proceed due to these disruptions and was rescheduled when the temporary restraining order in this action was vacated. Mr. Gupta described his meeting with Mr. Greene, where he was told that he would have to obey the GBC. Mr. Gupta stated that the congregation did not want the GBC at the Freeport Temple. Mr. Gupta added that he had learned about Religious Corporations Law § 195 and noticed a new election which proceeded pursuant to the rules of Religious Corporations Law Article 10. After he was elected President and new trustees were chosen, Mr. Gupta averred that he did not believe ISKCON, Inc. had any bylaws, so he began drafting bylaws which were ultimately approved in 2005. Subsequent elections were held in 2008, 2011, and 2014.
Mr. Gupta admitted that he operated his for-profit business out of the Freeport Temple premises, but claimed that it was "in keeping with the purposes of ISKCON" since he could make money and use it to help the temple. Mr. Gupta stated that he also opened farms because he was following the Founder's example of living a simpler life.
On cross examination, Mr. Gupta testified that he read the Founder's books in 1994 or 1995 and felt that such reading had the effect of initiating Mr. Gupta into the Founder's religion. Mr. Gupta defined "initiation" as making a full commitment to the Founder to follow his teachings. However, Mr. Gupta claimed that he has not been initiated into ISKCON Global and denied knowledge of the concept of ISKCON Global devotees. Mr. Gupta then stated that a "formal initiation" was conducted for him by a ritvik priest in 1996, and a second such initiation was performed in 2001 by another ritvik priest.
Mr. Gupta acknowledged that, as he had not visited the Freeport Temple prior to 2001, he lacked personal knowledge of what occurred prior to his arrival. Mr. Gupta confirmed that he did not comply with Ms. Nagel and Mr. Greene who communicated instructions to obey the GBC. Mr. Gupta additionally acknowledged that he had filed amended Articles of Incorporation for ISKCON, Inc., which he claimed was based on instructions provided by the Founder after the initial filing of Articles of Incorporation in 1966. Mr. Gupta claimed that he sought to create a new form of the "ISKCON" religion. Mr. Gupta was asked about the GBC's 2008 Resolutions expelling him from ISKCON Global and naming new trustees, and he affirmed that he ignored them. On redirect, Mr. Gupta claimed that the purpose of amending the Articles of Incorporation was to ensure that ISKCON, Inc. would not follow the GBC. Mr. Gupta stated that he had started the process of forming "another GBC" in 2008.
Viswa Garuda also testified on behalf of the defendant. Mr. Garuda described his professional background as well as the origins of his involvement with the "Hare Krishna movement." Mr. Garuda briefly became a full time monk in Melbourne, Australia, before moving to India where he attended various ISKCON Global temples. Mr. Garuda testified that he eventually met Jayapataka Swami, who suggested he help one of the struggling centers in North America. Mr. Garuda obtained a visa and arranged for transportation to the Freeport Temple. Mr. Garuda testified that the trustees of ISKCON, Inc. held a meeting and appointed him as President shortly after his arrival. Mr. Garuda described his surprise at learning Mr. Kelley had taken out a mortgage on the Freeport Temple property and detailed his efforts to clear the mortgage. Mr. Garuda stated that he successfully cleared Mr. Kelley's mortgage, without any assistance from Mr. Kelley or the GBC, and fixed each of the many issues with the Freeport Temple building as well.
Mr. Garuda testified that he submitted "some kind of a form" to the GBC, and that some GBC representatives had visited the Freeport Temple while he was President. However, Mr. Garuda felt that the GBC visitors were "not on any like authority or anything like that." Mr. Garuda asserted that the Freeport Temple did not have a GBC representative appointed to it and no property trustee appointed by the GBC. Mr. Garuda stated "before [this] lawsuit, there is no conversation. There is no GBC. There's nothing."
Mr. Garuda testified about the contested election that was originally noticed by him in 2004 but did not proceed. Mr. Garuda claimed that a group of forty to fifty people who were not members of the Freeport Temple appeared for the election to outnumber Mr. Garuda's supporters. This group also accused Mr. Garuda of stealing money. He showed the protesters proof that he had not stolen money but had actually cleared Mr. Kelley's mortgage. After the temporary restraining order was lifted in this action, the contested election was re-noticed and eventually proceeded in 2005.
On cross examination, Mr. Garuda acknowledged that he did not have any personal involvement with ISKCON, Inc. prior to his arrival at the Freeport Temple in 2000. Mr. Garuda stated that he attended a temple Presidents meeting, but that it was not a GBC meeting.
The defendant called Amit Shah to testify on his behalf as well. Mr. Shah has been involved in the ISKCON religion since 1979 and regularly attended the Freeport Temple from 1988 until approximately 1996. Mr. Shah testified that he provided a donation to help clear Mr. Kelley's mortgage so the Freeport Temple would not go into foreclosure. Mr. Shah added that a discussion was held with a GBC representative with regard to the mortgage. Mr. Shah stated that the GBC's response was to first deal with Mr. Kelley's resignation before picking an interim President and dealing with any other demands.
Prior to the close of the defendant's case, the defendant read prior testimony into the record of Wendyll Wynter, Surajit Debnath, Aruna Garuda, and Robert Morrill. Mr. Wynter was a regular attendee at the Freeport Temple. Mr. Wynter discussed Mr. Kelley's mortgage and noted that Mr. Kelley did not attend the Freeport Temple as often during 1995 and 1996. Mr. Debnath claimed that, despite his involvement in ISKCON, Inc., he never saw the 1989 bylaws. He also stated that he had signed certain documents, including the 1989 bylaws, without any review or familiarity as to their contents. Mrs. Garuda, wife of former defendant Viswa Garuda, described the notice provided and events surrounding the contested election of 2004. Mrs. Garuda additionally described the circumstances of being confronted by a mob led by Mr. Kelley, which falsely accused her husband of stealing money. Mrs. Garuda testified that she provided proof to them that Mr. Kelley's mortgage had actually been cleared by Mr. Garuda. Mrs. Garuda reiterated the defendant's claims that there was no relationship between the Freeport Temple and the GBC prior to 2004. Mr. Morrill's testimony pertained only to a letter that was ultimately not admitted into evidence.
Applicable Law
"The First Amendment, binding on the States through the Fourteenth, prohibits the making of 'laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'" (First Presbyterian Church v. United Presbyterian Church, 62 N.Y.2d 110 [1984], quoting U.S. Const, 1st Amdt, 14th Amdt). "The Constitution directs that religious bodies are to be left free to decide church matters for themselves, uninhibited by State interference (First Presbyterian Church, supra, citing Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 [1976]).
When a dispute arises over the ownership and control of a religious corporation's property, Courts are tasked with reviewing the religion's organizational structure and determining whether it qualifies as hierarchical or congregational. "Under the hierarchical system, authority is vested in the first instance in the governing body of the local church... but its actions are subject to review and control by higher church bodies, in ascending order of authority... To contrast, a congregational type church is independent of higher church authority and is self-governing" (First Presbyterian Church, supra; see also Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 [1979]). In a hierarchical church structure with a supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, "whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them" (Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 [1871]).
The "complete deference" standard of review provides that all members of hierarchical organizations submit themselves to the decision-making authority of the church in ecclesiastical matters, excluding civil court involvement 'in the absence of fraud, collusion or arbitrariness'" (First Presbyterian Church, supra, quoting Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1 [1929]). However, "there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without 'establishing' churches to which property is awarded'" (Jones, supra, quoting Presbyterian Church in United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 [1969]). "The neutral principles approach requires the courts to 'look to the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property'" (Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.) v. Trustees of First Presbyt. Church & Congregation of Ridgeberry, 72 A.D.3d 78 [2d Dept 2010], quoting Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish, 11 N.Y.3d 340 [2008]).
"In order to create a trust the settlor must properly manifest an intention to create such a relationship as constitutes a trust" (Restat 2d of Trusts, § 23). "It is immaterial whether or not the settlor knows that the intended relationship is called a trust, and whether or not he knows the precise characteristics of the relationship which is called a trust" (id.). "An express trust may be created orally or in writing; no particular form of words is necessary, and it may arise by implication from the settlor's conduct" (In re Marcus Trusts, 2 A.D.3d 640 [2d Dept 2003], quoting Orentreich v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 275 A.D.2d 685 [2000]). Courts have held that the manner in which a local church conducts its affairs in accordance with the rules of a general church, such as seeking consent from the general church to sell property of the local church, are actions "from which an intent to create a trust may be implied" (Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra, quoting First Presbyterian Church, supra). Where a property dispute exists between a local congregation and a general church, the court must "determine whether there is any basis for a trust or similar restriction in favor of the general church, taking special care to scrutinize in purely secular terms and not to rely on religious precepts in determining whether they indicate that the parties have intended to create a trust or restriction" (Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish, supra, quoting First Presbyterian Church, supra).
In addition to the aforementioned historical framework, a property dispute between the GBC and an ISKCON Global temple located in Brooklyn, New York was recently litigated. The Court in this action held that ISKCON Global "is a hierarchical religious organization in which local temples are subject to the laws, rules, and decisions of" the GBC (see Governing Body Commn. of the Intl. Socy. of Krishna Consciousness v. Britten, 2018 NY Slip Op 32787 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2018]). The Kings County action determined that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated the parties' intent to hold local temple property for the benefit of ISKCON Global (id). In the Kings County action, the Court applied the complete deference standard to GBC determinations over membership and discipline (id.). Ultimately, the Kings County action was appealed, and the Appellate Division Second Department affirmed and applied neutral principles of law in finding that the GBC's decisions were binding on the temple located in Brooklyn (see Governing Body Commn. of the Intl. Socy. of Krishna Consciousness v. Britten, 211 A.D.3d 701 [2d Dept 2022]).
As to the allegations of trespass, "[t]he elements of a cause of action sounding in trespass are an intentional entry onto the land of another without justification or permission, or a refusal to leave after permission has been granted but thereafter withdrawn" (Shrage v. Con Edison Co., 216 A.D.3d 1023 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Wlody v. Birch Family Servs., Inc., 210 A.D.3d 1036 [2d Dept 2022] ; see also Rager v. McCloskey, 305 NY 75 [1953]).
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Standing
As a preliminary matter, the defendant raises the issue of standing as to each of the plaintiffs. The defendant moved to dismiss during the trial of this action for various reasons including standing, and this Court reserved decision on the branch of plaintiff's motion to amend to conform the pleadings to the proof at trial requesting to replace "Praghosa" with "Revati Raman" as the named chairman of the GBC. At that time, it was determined that the defendant had failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, upon completion of the instant trial and review of the full record, this Court finds that only the GBC has standing to maintain this action.
Plaintiff Edward Kelley a/k/a Adarsi Das acknowledged that he resigned from "any and all positions... as an officer of [ISKCON, Inc.]" in 1995, but claimed that he remained a trustee moving forward. Mr. Kelley claimed that "trustee" is a separate position from "officer," and contended that his resignation letter applied only to his position as President of ISKCON, Inc. Mr. Kelley additionally argued that the GBC's 2008 Resolutions merely confirmed his status as trustee.
No evidence was submitted to support Mr. Kelley's claim that he was ever a trustee prior to the commencement of this action. To the contrary, documentary evidence demonstrates that Mr. Kelley was not a trustee until he was "hereby appointed" to the position by the GBC's 2008 Resolutions. The appointment would be unnecessary if Mr. Kelley already held such position. Accordingly, Mr. Kelley lacked standing to bring this action at the time it was commenced in 2004 (see Recine v. Soil Solutions, Inc., 63 A.D.3d 710 [2d Dept 2009]; see also Shelley v. South Shore Healthcare, 123 A.D.3d 797 [2d Dept 2014]).
In addition, it is this Court's determination that plaintiff ISKCON, Inc. lacked standing. ISKCON, Inc. was controlled by Mr. Garuda at the time this action was commenced, and was then under the control of the defendant, Mr. Gupta. While some members of ISKCON, Inc., including Mr. Kelley and the GBC, contested the election of Mr. Gupta, there has been no evidence that this action was authorized by Mr. Garuda or any of the actual officers or trustees of ISKCON, Inc. at the time of commencement in 2004 (see Recine, supra; see also Shelley, supra).
With regard to the GBC, General Association Law § 12 states, in relevant part, that "[a]n action or special proceeding may be maintained, by the president or treasurer of an unincorporated association to recovery any property... by reason of their interest or ownership therein." It has been held that "the specification of the president and treasurer should not be read as denying a right of action to an association lacking officers bearing such titles. Rather, it should be understood as permitting a president or treasurer, or an officer who is the functional equivalent, to sue on behalf of the organization" (Locke Assocs. v. Foundation for the Support of the UN, [173 Misc.2d 502 [Civil Court, New York County 1997]; see also Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Albany, 250 F.Supp.2d 48 [N.D.NY 2003]).
The record here demonstrates that there is no president of the GBC. Specifically, Mr. Sethi testified that "[t]he chairman is considered the top authority." Mr. Rumbaugh confirmed this structure, noting that he had served as GBC chairman. The plaintiffs were previously granted leave to amend in order to add the GBC chairman. When the plaintiffs moved to amend the caption to substitute the current chairman at trial, the defendant did not object to this substitution. As such, this Court grants the branch of the motion to substitute "Revati Raman" as Chairman of the GBC in place of "Praghosa" (see CPLR 3025). Upon the foregoing, contrary to the defendant's contentions, this Court finds that the GBC had standing to commence this action as beneficiary of the proposed trust it seeks to establish (see Locke Assocs., supra).
ISKCON Global's Structure
Expert witness Dr. Gupta concluded that ISKCON Global meets the criteria of "a hierarchical religion that is organized with a clear hierarchy going all the way up to the [GBC]." Dr. Gupta additionally described the Founder's succession plan, whereby the GBC was to replace the Founder as the ultimate authority of ISKCON Global matters after the Founder's passing. This expert opinion is supported by the Founder's Will and the Direction of Management, which clearly articulate the Founder's intended succession plan.
Dr. Gupta also explained GBC's structured hierarchy in detail. Dr. Resnick and Mr. Rumbaugh testified consistently as to the GBC's hierarchical structure based on their personal knowledge from their time within that structure in the roles of regional and zonal GBC representatives. It has been established that, within ISKCON Global, local temples are subject to review by regional GBC representatives, who report to zonal GBC representatives, and ultimately to the worldwide GBC as the top authority of this hierarchical structure. Further, the testimony of Mr. Tombleson, Mr. Sethi, and Mr. Das support Dr. Gupta's expert testimony regarding the GBC's procedures and how the GBC makes determinations on religious matters. Dr. Gupta's opinions are supported by the documentary evidence, and there has been no expert testimony to the contrary, nor has there been testimony to the contrary by anyone with personal knowledge of the GBC's conduct.
Notably, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the determination of the Kings County Supreme Court, which held that ISKCON Global "is a hierarchical religious organization in which local temples are subject to the laws, rules, and decisions of" the GBC (see Governing Body Commn. of the Intl. Socy. of Krishna Consciousness v. Britten, supra).
Upon the foregoing, the GBC has established that ISKCON Global is a religion that operates under a hierarchical system, whereby local temples are subject to review and control by the GBC and its ascending order of authority (see First Presbyterian Church, supra; see also Jones, supra). The GBC has continued to pass laws and make rulings on various ISKCON Global issues including religious practices and the management of properties. Among these rulings were the Resolutions prohibiting ritvik theory as "a dangerous philosophical deviation," and the expulsion of those who practiced ritvikism, including the defendant and Mr. Garuda. Accordingly, complete deference must be afforded to the GBC's decision making authority in ecclesiastical matters, and any final decisions of the GBC in such matters are therefore binding on this Court (see Watson, supra; see also First Presbyterian Church, supra).
ISKCON, Inc.'s Relationship to ISKCON Global
Though purchased after the Founder's death, the deed for the Freeport Temple lists ISKCON, Inc. as owner. ISKCON, Inc. was created by the Founder and predates the existence of the GBC and the ISKCON Law Book. Beyond the fact that the Founder established ISKCON, Inc., ISKCON Global, and the GBC, subsequent amendments to ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws expressly declare ISKCON, Inc.'s affiliation to the GBC. Further, the ISKCON Law Book, GBC Resolutions, and amendments to ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws show documented efforts to codify this affiliation.
Additionally, the testimony and evidence submitted at trial reveals a consistent relationship between ISKCON, Inc. and ISKCON Global from the time that ISKCON, Inc. was incorporated up until the contested election in 2004. Initially, this relationship speaks for itself, as the Founder created ISKCON, Inc. as part of his efforts to grow ISKCON Global, and the Founder personally oversaw the operations of ISKCON Inc. Following the Founder's death, the GBC acted as the ultimate authority for ISKCON Global, as per the Founder's wishes. Meanwhile, the testimony and evidence presented demonstrates that ISKCON, Inc. remained affiliated with the GBC and respected its authority. Specifically, amendments to ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws from 1982 and 1989 expressly acknowledge its affiliation with the GBC. It is noted that neither the defendant nor Mr. Garuda became involved in ISKCON, Inc. until the late 1990s. As such, the vast majority of the plaintiffs' evidence and testimony as to ISKCON, Inc.'s relationship to ISKCON Global prior to their arrival remains uncontested.
The relationship was maintained at all times up until the contested election in 2004 which resulted in this action, even during the tenure of Mr. Garuda. Mr. Garuda was originally named as defendant as President of the Freeport Temple at the time this action was commenced. Mr. Garuda noticed and presided over the contested election that ultimately resulted in this action. Mr. Garuda supported the defendant throughout the instant proceedings and testified on behalf of the defendant at trial, denying the GBC's authority. However, while Mr. Garuda sought to establish that no relationship existed between ISKCON, Inc. and the GBC during his tenure, he made several admissions that undermine these claims. Mr. Garuda initially denied, but then admitted, that he was asked to become involved in the Freeport Temple by a GBC member. In fact, the witness testimony revealed that each Freeport Temple President was selected by GBC representatives. Mr. Garuda admitted that GBC representatives visited the Freeport Temple during his time as President and that he attended a meeting of Presidents from various ISKCON Global temples. Additionally, Mr. Garuda submitted yearly Annual Reports to the GBC, whereby he provided information about the Freeport Temple's congregation, finances, and issues to the GBC. In the 2001 Annual Report, Mr. Garuda went as far as to comment that he would like to see the GBC visit more often. The 2002 and 2003 Annual Reports contain complaints about the condition of the Freeport Temple, presumably in hopes that the GBC would provide financial assistance. Additionally, while testifying on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Shah admitted to having discussions with the GBC and communicating demands to the GBC with regard to handling Mr. Kelley's mortgage. These admissions, together with the documentary proof provided including the aforementioned Annual Reports, establish that ISKCON, Inc.'s affiliation with the GBC continued at all times until the instant dispute occurred, including after Mr. Kelley's resignation and while Mr. Garuda was President.
Applying Neutral Principles of Law to the Instant Property Dispute
Using the neutral principles of law approach with regard to the Freeport Temple, it is this Court's finding that the plaintiff has established the existence of a trust (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra; see also, In re Marcus Trusts, supra).
The testimony and documentary evidence provided makes clear that the Founder, the GBC, and ISKCON, Inc. each manifested an intention to create a trust relationship (see Restat 2d of Trusts, § 23). At all times, ISKCON, Inc. conducted its operations in a manner consistent with the GBC's authority, and separately documented its intentions to be an affiliate of the GBC on multiple occasions. ISKCON, Inc.'s amended bylaws describe the GBC's responsibilities and demonstrate that the intent of ISKCON, Inc. was to operate in a manner that "will closely and enthusiastically adhere to the desires of [the Founder]." The Founder's desires are best articulated in the Direction of Management, where the Founder made his intentions clear that, after he passed, he wanted the GBC to oversee "all operations and management" of ISKCON Global and would have "the final approval in all matters." Further, the Founder articulated his intent in his Will, where he articulated that "[t]he [GBC] will be the ultimate managing authority of the entire [ISKCON Global]" and that "each temple will be an ISKCON [Global] property." Likewise, the GBC consistently documented its intentions, such as requiring that all affiliates "irrevocably dedicate all of [their] assets" to ISKCON Global.
Importantly, ISKCON Inc. continuously sought GBC approval on decisions with regard to the Freeport Temple property. Testimony from Mr. Kelley, Mr. Santos, and Mr. Shah establishes that the GBC took actions, including mortgaging the Freeport Temple premises, potentially shutting down the Freeport Temple, and ultimately restructuring and disposing of Mr. Kelley's loan. Seeking such permission further evidences ISKCON, Inc.'s intention to operate as a trust as well (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra; see also First Presbyterian Church, supra).
Accordingly, this Court finds that the operations and conduct of ISKCON, Inc., ISKCON Global, and the GBC demonstrate the existence of a trust (see First Presbyterian Church, supra). Documents including the Direction of Management, the Founder's Will, ISKCON, Inc.'s amended bylaws, and the ISKCON Law Book, as well as the testimony elicited at trial, establish that an express trust was created "by implication of the settlor's conduct" (In re Marcus Trusts, supra). Further, an implied trust would be established even in the absence of an express trust, based on the manner in which ISKCON, Inc. conducted its affairs in accordance with the rules of ISKCON Global (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra). Here, the Founder, the GBC, and ISKCON, Inc. each manifested an intention to operate under a trust relationship (see Restat 2d of Trusts, § 23; see also Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, supra). The Court's findings in the Kings County action were consistent with a trust relationship between the GBC and local temples as well (see Governing Body Commn. of the Intl. Socy. of Krishna Consciousness v. Britten, 2018 NY Slip Op 32787 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2018], affd 211 A.D.3d 701 [2d Dept 2022]).
The defendant's arguments that these entities failed to adhere to corporate formalities are not persuasive in light of the implied trust arising from the parties' conduct (see In re Marcus Trusts, supra). In any event, the defendant has failed to put forth any evidence to demonstrate that the bylaws of ISKCON, Inc., or any of the amendments thereof, were improper, abandoned, or the result of fraud (see First Presbyterian Church, supra; see also Gonzalez, supra). Rather, the evidence here demonstrates that ISKCON, Inc. operated pursuant to its bylaws and to the authority of the GBC.
Further, contrary to the defendant's contentions, the voting rules provided under Religious Corporations Law Article 10 do not negate the 1989 amendments to ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws. It has been held that "Religious Corporations Law §§ 194 and 195 sets forth how membership of a religious corporation is to be determined in the absence of by-laws and a constitution" (Matter of East Nassau Hebrew Cong., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 33534 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2010]). In light of ISKCON, Inc.'s bylaws, the default language of Religious Corporations Law Article 10 does not apply (see Kroth v. Congregation Chebra Ukadisha Bnai Israel Mikalwarie, 430 N.Y.S.2d 786 [Sup Ct, New York County 1980]).
It is therefore this Court's determination that the assets of ISKCON, Inc., including the Freeport Temple, are trust property held by ISKCON, Inc. for the benefit of ISKCON Global, with the GBC as its authority (see Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, supra; see also Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra, citing First Presbyterian Church, supra).
Trespass
In light of the foregoing determination that a trust exists, the GBC has demonstrated that it is the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON Global and related entities including ISKCON, Inc. As such, ISKCON, Inc. and all of its assets are dedicated "to the purposes of ISKCON Global," pursuant to Section 10.4.4.4 of the ISKCON Law Book. The ISKCON Law Book further states that, if Mr. Garuda and/or Mr. Gupta wished to terminate ISKCON, Inc.'s affiliation to ISKCON Global, they would have been required to "immediately transfer its real property and other assets to a fully recognized affiliate of ISKCON [Global]."
Here, as Mr. Gupta "significantly deviate[d] from the ecclesiastical doctrines of ISKCON [Global]," the GBC removed him pursuant to section 10.4.4.6 of the ISKCON Law Book. Specifically, Mr. Gupta testimony confirmed that he considered himself to have been initiated into his alternate version of "ISKCON" by the Founder by way of reading his works starting around 1994, several years after the Founder's death. The method of posthumous initiation by the Founder described by Mr. Gupta meets the GBC's definition of ritvikism. Further, while Mr. Gupta denied identifying as a ritvik, he admitted to being initiated by two ritvik priests and at a minimum, his testimony demonstrates the type of "refurbished version of ritvikism" prohibited by the GBC's 1999 Resolutions. The First Amendment protects the GBC's right to make these determinations as "the highest... judicator[y] to which the matter has been carried," and this Court "must accept such decisions as final, and binding" (Watson, supra; see also First Presbyterian Church, supra). ISKCON, Inc. is required to accept such decisions as final and binding as well (see Presbytery of Hudson Riv. of Presbyt. Church (U.S.A.), supra; see also Episcopal Diocese of Rochester v. Harnish, supra).
The GBC's 2008 Resolutions are also of seminal importance, providing clear directives about the status of the parties herein. The 2008 Resolutions found that the defendant "continue[d] to actively espouse the ritvik doctrine" and "hereby expelled [the defendant] from [ISKCON Global]." The 2008 Resolutions specifically directed that the defendant must "vacate the [Freeport Temple] premises" and "take all steps necessary to return control of the [Freeport Temple] premises to the sole and exclusive control of the GBC."
The defendant disregarded the GBC and it's directives in their entirety, refusing to acknowledge its authority and remaining in the Freeport Temple premises. When GBC representatives sought to adjudicate the dispute between themselves and Mr. Kelley, the defendant refused access despite the GBC's authority. The defendant and Mr. Garuda conducted the contested election over the objection of the GBC, and placed guards and physical barriers to prevent entry. The defendant continued to disobey GBC directives, including the 2008 Resolutions expelling him from the ISKCON Global religion and directing him to vacate the Freeport Temple premises. Mr. Gupta does not dispute that he conducted himself in a manner contrary to the ecclesiastical policies of ISKCON Global, as established by the GBC. As such, any permission to access the Freeport Temple premises that had been previously granted to Mr. Gupta was withdrawn.
It is this Court's finding that the GBC had authority to approve and enforce the 2008 Resolutions against the defendant, due to the hierarchical nature of ISKCON Global and the trust relationship between ISKCON Global and ISKCON, Inc. Accordingly, by refusing to vacate after permission was withdrawn, the defendant is trespassing onto the plaintiff's property (see Schrage, supra).
Corporate Usurpation
The plaintiff has failed to set forth any statute or legal precedent for the requested relief of "corporate usurpation." As noted by the defendant, no elements or guidelines exist to articulate what constitutes "corporate usurpation," and therefore this Court is unable to determine whether any "corporate usurpation" took place.
Declaratory Judgment
The plaintiffs initially requested certain declaratory judgment upon the commencement of this action. Prior to reversal on appeal, an inquest was held wherein the plaintiffs requested a different set of declaratory relief. Prior to the trial of this action, the defendant made a motion in limine, raising various issues including the declaratory relief sought by plaintiff. This Court reserved decision on that issue, while noting that the updated relief requested did not surprise or prejudice the defendant in any way. After presenting its case, the plaintiff moved to amend to conform the pleadings to the evidence introduced at trial, including a final set of requests for declaratory relief. The plaintiff seeks the following declarations:
• ISKCON Global is a hierarchical religion;
• ISKCON Global's highest ecclesiastical managing authority is the GBC;
• As the highest ecclesiastical and managing authority, the GBC has the authority to determine membership in ISKCON Global;
• The GBC of ISKCON Global has, by official Resolutions, expelled defendant Nikhil Gupta a/k/a Nimai Pandit;
• ISKCON, Inc. holds the Freeport Temple and its personal property including the deities installed by the Founder in express and implied trust for the benefit of ISKCON Global;
• The bylaws adopted by ISKCON, Inc. In 1989 are the true and correct bylaws of ISKCON, Inc.;
• As a result of the defendant and his predecessor defendants' violation of the 1989 bylaws, the 2001, 2004 and any subsequent elections held by the defendant were in violation of ISKCON, Inc.'s 1989 bylaws and therefore are null and void;
• As a result of these elections being null and void, the GBC has the right and authority to appoint a Board of Trustees to manage the plaintiff and control the Freeport Temple premises;
• Based on the GBC's right and authority to appoint a Board of Trustees to ISKCON, Inc., plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are the trustees of ISKCON, Inc.;
• Plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are entitled to control and operate ISKCON, Inc. as its three members of the Board of Trustees to the exclusion of all other persons claiming to be trustees of ISKCON, Inc., including the defendant;
• Plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are entitled to immediate possession of the Freeport Temple premises and personal property to the exclusion of all other persons claiming to be trustees of ISKCON, Inc. including the defendant;
• Plaintiffs are entitled to the ejectment of defendant and John Does being any and all individuals other than the defendant who occupy, reside, lease or claim any other possessory interest against the rights of the plaintiffs into the Freeport Temple premises.
As with the requests for declaratory relief at the inquest in this action, the newly requested items of declaratory relief do not pose any surprise or prejudice to the defendant. The requested declaratory relief flows from the same facts the plaintiffs have sought to establish from the outset of this action, and provide more clarity as to the parties' rights and obligations moving forward. As such, the plaintiff has met its burden on the branch of its motion to amend to conform the pleadings to the evidence elicited at trial with regard to declaratory relief (see CPLR 3025[c]). However, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate immediate entitlement to each of the newly requested items of declaratory relief. Specifically, it would be improper at this time to allow ejectment as against unidentified "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" occupants of the Freeport Temple, for whom there is no evidence of service or notice of such requested relief.
Additionally, as indicated herein, defendant Nikhil Gupta is the only remaining defendant in this action. Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence against the original or otherwise named defendants, and accordingly, the Court denies any request for relief as against them.
Equitable Relief
The plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint at the close of its case included a request for equitable relief, including an Order directing the Nassau County Clerk to strike from its records an amended Certificate of Incorporation for ISKCON, Inc., as well as a Certificate of Assumed Name, which were filed by the defendant in 2008. The plaintiff additionally seeks an Order of Ejectment and Judgment of Possession, directing the Sheriff of Nassau County to remove the defendant as well as various "John Does" and "Jane Does" who may be residing at the Freeport Temple.
Here, the plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to amend the Complaint with regard to directing the Nassau County Clerk to strike the amended Certificate of Incorporation and Certificate of Assumed Name because those items were filed by an individual without the proper authority to do so (see Johnson v. Melnikoff, 873 N.Y.S.2d 234 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2008]). However, as stated above, it would be improper at this time to grant an Order of Ejectment as against unnamed defendants for whom there is no evidence of service or notice of such requested relief.
Conclusion
Upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiff GBC has established entitlement to and is GRANTED the following declaratory relief:
• ISKCON Global is a hierarchical religion;
• ISKCON Global's highest ecclesiastical managing authority is the GBC;
• As the highest ecclesiastical and managing authority, the GBC has the authority to determine membership in ISKCON Global;
• The GBC of ISKCON Global has, by official Resolutions, expelled defendant Nikhil Gupta a/k/a Nimai Pandit;
• ISKCON, Inc. holds the Freeport Temple, located at 197 South Ocean Avenue, Freeport, New York, and its personal property including the deities installed by the Founder in express and implied trust for the benefit of ISKCON Global;
• The bylaws adopted by ISKCON, Inc. In 1989 are the true and correct bylaws of ISKCON, Inc.;
• As a result of the defendant and his predecessor defendants' violation of the 1989 bylaws, the 2001, 2004 and any subsequent elections held by the defendant were in violation of ISKCON, Inc.'s 1989 bylaws and therefore are null and void;
• As a result of these elections being null and void, the GBC has the right and authority to appoint a Board of Trustees to manage the plaintiff and control the Freeport Temple premises;
• Based on the GBC's right and authority to appoint a Board of Trustees to ISKCON, Inc., plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are the trustees of ISKCON, Inc.;
• Plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are entitled to control and operate ISKCON, Inc. as its three members of the Board of Trustees to the exclusion of all other persons claiming to be trustees of ISKCON, Inc., including the defendant;and, it is further
ORDERED, that upon an Order resulting from proper eviction/ejectment proceedings, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the additional following items of declaratory relief:
• Plaintiff Edward Kelley, Brian Rumbaugh and Christopher Ostrowski are entitled to immediate possession of the Freeport Temple premises and property belonging to the Temple, including but not limited to deities, to the exclusion of all other persons claiming to be trustees of ISKCON, Inc., including the defendant;
• Plaintiffs are entitled to the ejectment of defendant and John Does being any and all individuals other than the defendant who occupy, reside, lease or claim any other possessory interest against the rights of the plaintiffs into the Freeport Temple premises;
and, it is further
ORDERED, that the Nassau County Clerk is hereby directed to strike from its records the amended Certificate of Incorporation for ISKCON, Inc., as well as the Certificate of Assumed Name filed by the defendant in 2008; and it is further
ORDERED, that all requests for relief not specifically addressed herein are denied; and it is further
ORDERED, that plaintiff shall submit judgment on notice.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
It is SO ORDERED.