Hezrony v. Gale: New Jersey Court Confirms Rabbinical Arbitration Awards and Orders Turnover of Congregation Property
In Hezrony v. Gale, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, confirmed a series of Bais HaVaad rabbinical arbitration awards, upheld the termination of a synagogue’s rabbi, and ordered immediate turnover of congregation property to our clients, the congregation members. This decision reinforces New Jersey’s strong policy favoring arbitration under the New Jersey Arbitration Act, including in disputes adjudicated by religious tribunals.
This case alert highlights how Shapiro, Croland, Reiser, Apfel & Di Iorio advocated for the congregation members to confirm the rabbinical awards, defeat the challenge to arbitration, and secure possession of the synagogue-owned residence and control of corporate records.
Case Background
The dispute in Hezrony v. Gale, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 825 (Law Div. Apr. 23, 2026), arose out of a long-running governance and financial conflict within a small New Jersey synagogue, Congregation Anshei Roosevelt. Plaintiffs included the rabbi, his family members, and the congregation entity; defendants were a group of long‑standing congregants and former trustees.
The rabbi’s April 2019 employment agreement with the congregation provided that accusations of rabbinic misconduct would be heard before a rabbinical court in Lakewood, New Jersey. After extensive litigation in the Chancery and Law Divisions, and a prior Chancery Division ruling sending all claims of rabbinic misconduct to the Bais HaVaad rabbinical court, the parties proceeded before that tribunal.
The Bais HaVaad issued three arbitration awards in 2024 and 2025, ultimately finding that the rabbi engaged in grave misconduct and ordering his termination and related governance remedies. The rabbi and the congregation entity then filed a Law Division action seeking to vacate the awards, while the congregation members moved to confirm them.
Legal Challenge
The central legal question was whether the court should vacate or confirm the rabbinical arbitration awards under the New Jersey Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑1 to ‑36.
Plaintiffs moved under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑23(a) to vacate the awards, arguing that:
- The Bais HaVaad exceeded its powers (subsection (a)(4)) by issuing remedies—particularly termination of the rabbi—that they claimed were reserved exclusively to the board of trustees and by allegedly affecting non‑party congregants.
- There was no valid agreement to arbitrate misconduct claims (subsection (a)(5)), notwithstanding the employment agreement and the parties’ conduct.
- The rabbi purportedly lacked proper notice of the misconduct allegations (subsection (a)(6)).
Our clients, the congregation members, opposed vacatur and cross‑moved to confirm the awards under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑22, emphasizing the strong public policy favoring arbitration, the breadth of the arbitration clause, and the deference courts owe to religious tribunals that adjudicate disputes over the conduct of spiritual leaders.
Our Approach
Shapiro Croland represented the congregation members as defendants seeking to confirm the Bais HaVaad awards and to implement the tribunal’s determination that the rabbi’s employment had ended and that he must vacate congregation housing.
Working from the rabbi’s own Employment Agreement, we argued that:
- Paragraph F required that “any” accusations of rabbinic misconduct be brought to a mutually agreeable Bedin in Lakewood, thereby establishing a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.
- The parties had, in fact, executed a kinyan—a halachic mechanism of consent—granting the Bais HaVaad jurisdiction over all misconduct claims, which the tribunal expressly recited in its July 14, 2024 award.
- Having successfully moved in Chancery Division to send all misconduct claims to the rabbinical court, the rabbi was judicially estopped from now denying the existence or scope of that agreement.
We further highlighted the Bais HaVaad’s careful, 42‑page June 26, 2025 award, which:
- Thoroughly recounted evidence on governance and finances, including detailed analysis of the synagogue’s Torah fund.
- Framed the rabbi’s conduct as grave misconduct and moral turpitude, particularly in light of inconsistent explanations and lack of transparency regarding congregational funds.
- Crafted tailored remedies to restore proper membership, governance, and financial oversight, and provided that failure to comply within ten days would result in automatic termination for cause.
Relying on New Jersey precedent recognizing the enforceability of religious tribunal decisions (including Elmora Hebrew Center v. Fishman), we argued that the Bais HaVaad acted within its contractual and statutory authority, that there was no evidence of fraud, corruption, or undue means, and that the court should respect the tribunal’s determination of both liability and remedy.
Outcome
The Law Division denied all counts of the plaintiffs’ verified complaint to vacate the arbitration awards with prejudice and granted our cross‑motion to confirm the Bais HaVaad awards under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑22.
Key rulings included:
- Valid agreement to arbitrate: The court held that the employment agreement and the kinyan, combined with the rabbi’s prior motion practice, established a binding agreement to arbitrate all misconduct claims before the Bais HaVaad, rejecting the argument that no valid agreement existed.
- Judicial estoppel: Because the rabbi had previously and successfully argued in Chancery that all misconduct claims belonged in the rabbinical court, he was judicially estopped from taking the opposite position to attack the awards.
- Scope and remedies: The court found that the Bais HaVaad did not exceed its powers by ordering the rabbi’s termination. Nothing in the employment agreement barred the tribunal from imposing that remedy, and the court rejected the notion that the board alone could certify the rabbi’s innocence or control his status.
- No basis for vacatur: The court found no evidence of fraud, corruption, undue means, or refusal to consider material evidence. Disagreement with the tribunal’s factual findings—such as on the Torah fund—was not a ground to vacate.
To effectuate the awards, the court further ordered that:
- Rabbi Moshe Hezrony is deemed terminated from his position as rabbi of Congregation Anshei Roosevelt.
- The congregation shall immediately recover possession of the synagogue‑owned residence at 20 Homestead Lane in Roosevelt, New Jersey, with a brief stay of enforcement to allow an orderly move‑out.
- The rabbi must turn over all keys, corporate records, and funds of the congregation, including financial records and online account credentials, to a designated congregation representative within seven days.
- Our clients’ request for attorneys’ fees under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑25(c) was denied without prejudice in light of the American Rule and the absence of a fee‑shifting provision in the employment agreement.
Key Takeaway for Faith‑Based and Nonprofit Organizations
Hezrony v. Gale underscores that New Jersey courts will enforce arbitration clauses and religious tribunal decisions according to their terms, even when those decisions address the status of spiritual leaders and sensitive governance issues.
For faith‑based and nonprofit organizations, this decision highlights several practical points:
- Well‑drafted arbitration clauses matter. Clear language in employment agreements and bylaws, particularly for clergy and senior leadership, can ensure that disputes are resolved in the agreed forum, including religious tribunals.
- Consistency in litigation positions is critical. Parties who invoke arbitration to dismiss court claims may be barred from later attacking the arbitrator’s jurisdiction or the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.
- Courts defer to arbitrators on remedies. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑21, arbitrators may order remedies a court might not have granted in the first instance; disagreement with the tribunal’s factual findings rarely suffices to vacate an award.
- Housing and property rights often track employment status. Where parsonage or other housing is tied to an employment agreement, termination will often lead to an obligation to vacate and transfer control back to the organization.
Organizations that rely on religious tribunals or other specialized arbitration forums should periodically review their contracts and governance documents to ensure that dispute‑resolution provisions are clear, enforceable, and aligned with their operational needs.
How We Can Help
We regularly represent congregations, religious and nonprofit boards, and closely held organizations in arbitration and court proceedings involving governance, employment, and property disputes. In matters like Hezrony v. Gale, we draw on our experience with the New Jersey Arbitration Act and religious tribunal practice to structure agreements, enforce or challenge awards, and protect our clients’ ability to carry out their missions.
If your organization is considering arbitration provisions, facing a dispute before a religious tribunal, or dealing with the aftermath of an arbitration award, we can help you evaluate your options and develop a strategic path forward.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique — consult an attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
Frequently asked questions
What did the court decide in Hezrony v. Gale about the rabbinical arbitration awards?
The court confirmed the Bais HaVaad rabbinical arbitration awards and denied the plaintiffs’ attempt to vacate them. It held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, that the rabbi was judicially estopped from denying that agreement, and that the tribunal did not exceed its powers or engage in misconduct. As a result, the rabbi was deemed terminated, and the congregation obtained possession of the synagogue‑owned residence and control of its records.
- The court denied all counts seeking vacatur under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑23 with prejudice.
- It granted the congregation members’ motion to confirm under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B‑22.
- It ordered turnover of the parsonage and corporate records to the congregation.
How does this decision affect arbitration clauses that send disputes to religious tribunals?
The decision reinforces that New Jersey courts will enforce arbitration agreements that designate religious tribunals, so long as basic statutory requirements are met. The court treated the Bais HaVaad as an arbitral forum under the New Jersey Arbitration Act and deferred to its factual findings and choice of remedies. For organizations, this means that carefully drafted clauses in employment agreements and governing documents can effectively channel disputes—especially about clergy conduct and internal governance—to religious tribunals whose awards are then subject to the narrow review standards of the Act.
- Religious tribunals can function as arbitral bodies when parties clearly agree to their jurisdiction.
- Courts focus on statutory vacatur grounds, not relitigating facts or theology.
- Consistent contractual and litigation positions are essential to preserving or contesting arbitration.
What practical steps should a congregation or nonprofit take when using arbitration in leadership disputes?
Congregations and nonprofits should ensure that employment agreements and bylaws clearly define which disputes go to arbitration and which tribunal will hear them. They should also plan in advance for the consequences of an adverse award, including leadership transitions, housing, and access to records. Working with experienced counsel, boards can design dispute‑resolution provisions that respect religious or mission‑driven processes while remaining enforceable under state law.
- Review and, if needed, update employment agreements and governing documents to clarify arbitration provisions.
- Address housing, compensation, and records‑control consequences tied to leadership status.
- Engage counsel early when disputes emerge to align strategy across arbitration and court proceedings.