Marmelstein v. Kehillat New Hempstead
892 N.E.2d 375, 11 N.Y.3d 15 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against a cleric arising from a consensual sexual relationship, a plaintiff must plead specific facts demonstrating the cleric exercised 'de facto control and dominance' and that the congregant was 'uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection' regarding the matter at issue.
Facts:
- In 1994, Adina Marmelstein began contacting Rabbi Mordecai Tendler for advice on personal issues.
- In 1996, Marmelstein joined Tendler's synagogue, where he served as its founder and spiritual leader.
- Tendler provided counseling to Marmelstein on various personal, legal, and financial matters, including her desire to find a husband.
- Tendler told Marmelstein that he was 'as close to God as anyone could get' and that her 'only hope' of finding a husband was to engage in a sexual relationship with him, which he framed as a 'course of sexual therapy'.
- From November 2001 to May 2005, Marmelstein and Tendler engaged in a consensual sexual relationship.
- During the relationship, Tendler threatened to have Marmelstein institutionalized, banned from the synagogue, and turn the community against her if she disclosed the affair.
- After the relationship ended, Marmelstein alleged that Tendler damaged her reputation, causing her to be ostracized by her religious community.
Procedural Posture:
- Adina Marmelstein filed a lawsuit against Mordecai Tendler and his synagogue in the New York Supreme Court, a state trial court.
- The trial court dismissed Marmelstein's claims for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress but denied the motion to dismiss the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Tendler, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and dismissed the remaining causes of action against Tendler.
- Marmelstein, now the appellant, appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a consensual, multi-year sexual relationship between a cleric and an adult congregant, initiated based on the cleric's advice that it constituted a form of therapy, give rise to a viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No. A consensual sexual affair between consenting adults does not support a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a cleric unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that a fiduciary relationship existed, which requires a showing of de facto control and dominance by the cleric and unique vulnerability on the part of the congregant. Here, Marmelstein's allegations are insufficient to establish such a relationship. The court reasoned that general allegations of a cleric-congregant relationship that includes counseling are not enough to impose a fiduciary obligation. To distinguish a viable claim from a non-actionable seduction claim, the plaintiff must articulate specific facts showing they were so uniquely vulnerable as to be incapable of self-protection. Marmelstein's complaint shows she was deceived into a voluntary relationship, not that she surrendered her will and capacity to determine her own best interests. Therefore, the claim is barred as an attempt to plead a seduction cause of action, which is prohibited by New York's 'heart balm' statute (Civil Rights Law § 80-a), even if consent was obtained through manipulation or reprehensible conduct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly raises the pleading standard for plaintiffs seeking to hold clergy members civilly liable for breach of fiduciary duty in the context of consensual sexual relationships. By requiring a specific showing of 'de facto control and dominance' and 'unique vulnerability,' the court created a high bar that distinguishes these claims from ordinary cleric-congregant counseling and from abolished 'seduction' claims. This framework aims to prevent First Amendment entanglements by avoiding judicial inquiry into religious doctrines while also making it more difficult for adults who consented to relationships, even under manipulative circumstances, to succeed in tort. The ruling effectively shields clergy from liability for such relationships with adults unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a near-complete loss of their own autonomy.
