SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS WILMOS FRIEDMAN, HERMAN KAHAN, ZIGMOND BRACE, JOSE MASRI, ERVIN ROSNER, MORRIS : FRIEDMAN, JOSEPH EPSTEIN, HERMAN LANDAU, MOSES SPEILMAN and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, + Hon. Carolyn E, Demarest ~ against - : CYL CEMETERY, INC., CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR, INC., CHEVRE KADISHE D’SATMAR, a AFRIRMA Division of CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D'SATMAR, INC,, CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D’SATMAR OF KIRYAS JOEL, INC., CENTRAL CONGREGATION Index No. 3481/08 ‘YBTEV LEV D’SATMAR, INC., RABBI EZRIEL GLUCK, JOSEPH WEISS: MOSES WITRIOL, NEW YORK STATE POLICE, DAVID MARKOWITZ, CHAIM ELIEZER GROSS, JOEL KAUFMAN, DAVID EKSTEIN, ELIAS HOROWITZ, + and SHLOMO WERTZBERGER, Defendants. JEFFREY D. BUSS, BSQ., an attomey at law duly admitted to practice before the Courts of this State, hereby affirms subject to the penalties of perjury that: 1 Lam a member of Smith, Buss & Jacobs, LLP, co-counsel with Andrew Fisher, of Fisher & Fishei, for Defendants CYL CEMETERY, INC., CONGREGATION YBIEV LEV D’SATMAR, INC, CHEVRE KADISHE D'SATMAR, CENTRAL CONGREGATION YETEV LEV D’SATMAR, INC, JOSEPH WEISS, DAVID MARKOWITZ, CHAIM GROSS, JOEL KAUFMAN, BLIAS HOROWITZ AND SHLOMO WERTZBERGER. 2, AS set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ are not entitled to injunctive relief They cannot establish a substintial likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, and their Complaint must be dismissed as a matter of law since it presents a non-justiciable controversy.3, Plaintiffs are nine individuals who claim to be members in good standing of the Satmar Hasidim sect of Judaism. They are not. Plaintiffs assert that they paid money to other individuals, ‘whom Plaintiffs believe to be officers and directors of Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, for what they claim fo be an absolute, contractual right to be buried in a particular Satmar cemetery located in Kiryas Joel, New York. Plaintifis further allege that defendants, without any authority, have interfered with the rights of non-plaintifis to be buried in the Kiryas Joe! cemetery by demanding the payment of money. In each example set forth, the non-party was interred. 4, Plaintiffs? voluminous motion papers ignore the August 22, 2008 Decision and Order of the Honorable Iustice Michael Ambrosio in which the Court dismissed three actions erising out of the same internal power struggle within the Setmar Hasidic community as non-justiciable. Two of those actions involved ‘efforts to assert class action contract claims against the Congregation’s leadership and the third involved an effort to interpret prior court decisions in a manner winich would grant judicial recognition to one internal faction over another, [Exhibit A, August 224, 2008 Decision and Order of the Hotiorable Michael A. Ambrosio, Frankel et. al. v. Congregation Yetev Ley D’Satmar. Justice Ambrosio’s Decision, as well as @ 2007 Decision by the New York State Court of Appeals, Congregation Yétev Lev @°Satmar v Kahana, et. al, 9 NY 3d 282, (2007), [Exhibit B], and the original tial cout decision by Justice Barasch, Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satma, Ino., v. Kahana, et al, 5 Miso 34°1023, [Exhibit C] mandate the dismissal of Plaintifis’ Complaint as a matter of law since membership and the authority of individuals to act as elected officers of Defendants, must be determined in onder to resolve each and every situation presented by Plaintiffs 5, Undisclosed by Plaintiffs is the fact that five (5) of the named plaintiffs were parties to the Court of Appeals decision cited above, and that the record before the Court of Appeals containedconflicting claims relating to the operation and control of the Satmar cemetery, including access, burial and the right to collect burial fees. In fact, the recotd before the Court of Appeals contains a 2004 affidavit submitted to the tril court [Justice Barasch] by Plaintiffs” faction in this proceeding, alleging that some of the same individuals named as Defendants in this proceeding were demanding burial fees and erecting headstones in the Satmar cemetery without “authority”, The affidavit “unsuccessfully sought a declaration that only Plaintiffs? faction was authorized to collect burial fees and an order adjiidging Defendants in contempt, [Exhibit J, April 6", 2004 cover letter and April a, 2004 Perlstein Affidavit]. Similarly, e companion case presented to the Court of Appeals the same day, and reaching the same result, arose out of a dispute in Orange County over access to the Satmar cemetery. The litigation presented by Plaintifis’ to this Court involves a resolution of the same legal issues, and as such, is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel 6. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be decided by this Court as a matter of law because: = ‘The Court would be requited to determine the membership status of plaintiff “The ability to be interred in a private, religious cemetery is an incidental benefit to membership in that religious organization. Membership must be effective as of the date of death. As recognized by the Court of Appeals, membership in the Satmar Hasidic sect is determined by a religious test and is not susceptible to judicial determination; and + The Court would have to determine whether Defendants are duly elected officers, authorized to act on behalf of the Congregation and the burial society, a determination which the Court of Appeals has specifically found to be non- justiciable; and