Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov

Citations

• 349 Conn. 695

Syllabus

The plaintiff organization sought to recover possession of certain commer- cial property occupied by the defendants S, C Co., and G Co. by way of a summary process action. Chabad Lubavitch (Chabad) is a hierarchical religious movement of Hasidic Judaism. D, the founder and former president of the plaintiff, had served the Chabad community in the city of Stamford as the shliach, or ecclesiastical leader, until 2014, when he entered into a written agreement to transfer his responsibilities to S. The 2014 agreement provided that, going forward, S would serve as the shliach for Stamford and assume various responsibilities in connection with that position, but it made no express reference to the plaintiff's property, which served as the central site for various services for the local Chabad community. S thereafter took possession of, and operated C Co. and G Co. out of, the property, and began making regular mortgage payments in connection with its possession of the property. When D and S's relationship deteriorated, S stopped making mortgage payments. D thereafter sent a letter to S, on the plaintiff's letterhead and in his capacity as the plaintiff's authorized representative, ordering him to vacate the property and purporting to remove him from his position as shliach. D and S then entered into an arbitration agreement, pursuant to which they agreed to resolve their various disagreements before a Bais Din, which is a rabbinical tribunal authorized to adjudicate disputes in accordance with Jewish law. D and S signed the arbitration agreement individually and on behalf of their respective institutions. The Bais Din ruled that S would continue to serve as shliach and ordered S to make the mortgage payments but that D would retain ownership of the property for three years, after which the issue of the ownership of the property 696 SEPTEMBER, 2024 349 Conn. 695 Chabad Lubavitch of Western & Southern New England, Inc. v. Shemtov would be reviewed. The Bais Din subsequently