Appeal Denied: New Court Decision Further Closes Door in Long-Running 770 Legal Dispute

by CrownHeights,info

A significant new development has emerged in the long-running legal dispute surrounding 770 Eastern Parkway, with New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, denying a request by the Gabboim of 770 to take a further appeal in the case involving Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch and Agudas Chasidei Chabad.

The one-page decision, entered Thursday, August 28, 2026, concerns a motion filed by Zalman Lipskier, Avrohom Holtzberg and Shalom Ber Kievman seeking permission to appeal the January 2024 ruling of the Appellate Term to the Appellate Division.

The court denied that motion.

The ruling, while brief, represents another step in the lengthy legal battle over the properties and synagogue facilities associated with 770 Eastern Parkway and 784-788 Eastern Parkway.

What Did the Court Actually Decide?

The latest decision is important to understand in its proper procedural context.

The case has already passed through several levels of New York courts. The most recent motion was not itself an appeal deciding the underlying ownership dispute anew. Rather, the Gabboim sought permission from the Appellate Division to appeal the January 19, 2024 decision of the Appellate Term.

In its August 28 decision, the Appellate Division identified the motion as one by Lipskier, Holtzberg and Kievman “for leave to appeal” from the Appellate Term’s January 19, 2024 decision and order.

After reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, the four-judge panel simply ordered: “the motion is denied.”

In other words, the Appellate Division declined to take up the requested appeal.

The decision was signed by Justice Francesca E. Connolly, with Justices Linda Christopher, Helen Voutsinas and Laurence L. Love concurring.

How Did the Case Get Here?

The latest development follows a complicated series of court proceedings stretching back nearly two decades.

The dispute involves Agudas Chasidei Chabad, which the courts have recognized as the owner of 770 Eastern Parkway, Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, which owns 784-788 Eastern Parkway, and Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., the corporation associated with the Gabboim.

The properties contain the central Lubavitch synagogue and various additional spaces, including offices and other facilities. The Gabboim have historically administered the day-to-day affairs of the synagogue.

The dispute has previously been litigated in New York Supreme Court, the Appellate Division, and the Civil Court.

In an earlier Supreme Court action, Agudas and Merkos successfully obtained an ejectment judgment against Congregation Lubavitch, Inc. concerning 770 and 784-788. The Supreme Court determined that Agudas and Merkos were the respective owners and entitled to possession, and the Appellate Division subsequently affirmed the portion of the judgment ejecting CLI from those properties.

The 2022 Civil Court Ruling

The most recent round of litigation began with summary proceedings brought by Agudas and Merkos seeking possession of the respective premises.

Agudas commenced proceedings concerning 770, while Merkos commenced proceedings concerning 784-788. Merkos also brought a separate proceeding concerning an office space at 302-304 Kingston Avenue that was identified in the proceedings as the “Gaboyim-CLI Office.”

Following a non-jury trial, the Civil Court entered judgments on January 6, 2022, awarding possession to the respective petitioners.

The Gabboim and Congregation Lubavitch appealed.

January 2024: A Complicated Appellate Ruling

On January 19, 2024, the Appellate Term issued its decision.

The ruling was more nuanced than some of the headlines that followed it suggested.

The court dismissed the proceedings against certain entities that had been improperly named as unincorporated associations and vacated the judgments against them. As to Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., the court modified the judgments concerning 770 and 784-788 by vacating the portions entered against CLI and dismissing those portions of the petitions. At the same time, the court affirmed the judgment concerning the 302-304 Kingston Avenue office space.

The central reason for the dismissal concerning CLI and 770/784-788 was res judicata, the legal doctrine that prevents parties from repeatedly litigating claims that have already been conclusively resolved.

The Appellate Term pointed specifically to the earlier Supreme Court ejectment case, noting that CLI had already been ejected from 770 and 784-788 and that the earlier judgment had been affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court concluded that the new proceedings, insofar as they sought possession from CLI of those same premises, were barred by the prior judgment.

At the same time, the court found that the 302-304 office proceeding was not barred by res judicata because that property had not been part of the earlier ejectment action. The judgment concerning that office space was therefore affirmed.

The Appellate Term also rejected arguments that the dispute was beyond the jurisdiction of a civil court because of its religious nature. The court explained that property and possession disputes can be resolved using “neutral principles of law”—including deeds, corporate documents and bylaws—without requiring a court to determine religious doctrine.

Another Appeal Was Already Denied in 2024

Following the January 2024 ruling, the Gabboim and CLI sought further relief.

In June 2024, the Appellate Term denied motions seeking to reargue the January decision or, alternatively, seeking permission to appeal that decision to the Appellate Division.

That left the parties with the option of seeking leave from the Appellate Division itself. That is the request that has now been denied.

Appellate Division Says No

The newly released August 28, 2026 order concerns precisely that request.

The motion was filed by Zalman Lipskier, Avrohom Holtzberg and Shalom Ber Kievman, seeking leave to appeal the January 19th, 2024 Appellate Term decision.

After considering the papers submitted both in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Appellate Division denied it.

Unlike the lengthy January 2024 opinion, the new order does not revisit the evidence, ownership claims, religious issues or the various legal arguments raised throughout the litigation.

It is a procedural determination: the Appellate Division declined to grant permission for another appeal.

What the New Decision Means

The significance of Thursday’s decision therefore lies in what it leaves standing.

The January 2024 Appellate Term decision remains the controlling appellate ruling in this particular proceeding, while the attempt to obtain further review from the Appellate Division has now been rejected.

That ruling must also be read together with the earlier Supreme Court and Appellate Division decisions concerning the ejectment of CLI from 770 and 784-788—decisions that the Appellate Term itself relied upon when applying res judicata in the 2024 proceedings.

The latest order does not contain a new declaration that the Gabboim have been removed from the physical synagogue, nor does it independently adjudicate day-to-day management of the shul. Rather, it closes another avenue of appellate review of the January 2024 decision.

The legal battle over 770 has consequently proceeded through multiple layers of litigation, with the courts repeatedly distinguishing between ownership of the properties, legal possession of the premises, and the practical administration of the synagogue.

For a dispute that has occupied the courts for years, Thursday’s order marks another consequential procedural development—and another indication that the latest round of appeals is reaching its final stages.

The complete August 28, 2026 decision and order is reproduced above.