A New York appeals court has rejected the latest attempt by the Gabboim of 770 Eastern Parkway to obtain further review in the years-long legal battle involving the iconic Lubavitch headquarters, denying their request to appeal a January 2024 ruling involving Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch and Agudas Chasidei Chabad.
The one-page order, entered Thursday, August 28, 2026, by the Appellate Division, Second Department, denied a motion filed by Zalman Lipskier, Avrohom Holtzberg and Shalom Ber Kievman. The three had asked the court for permission to challenge the January 2024 decision issued by the Appellate Term.
The court rejected the request.
Although the latest order is exceedingly brief, it represents another consequential development in litigation that has continued for years over the properties and shul facilities at 770 Eastern Parkway and 784-788 Eastern Parkway.
The scope of the new ruling is important. The Appellate Division was not being asked at this stage to conduct a new review of the underlying ownership dispute or issue a fresh determination regarding who owns the properties.
Instead, the Gabboim were seeking the court’s permission to pursue an additional appeal of the Appellate Term’s January 19, 2024 decision.
In Thursday’s order, the Appellate Division described the application by Lipskier, Holtzberg and Kievman as a motion “for leave to appeal” from the January 19, 2024 decision and order.
Having reviewed the submissions from both sides, the four-justice panel issued a succinct determination: “the motion is denied.”
The ruling therefore means that the Appellate Division will not hear the requested appeal.
Justice Francesca E. Connolly signed the decision, with Justices Linda Christopher, Helen Voutsinas and Laurence L. Love concurring.
The latest ruling is the newest chapter in a complicated legal fight that stretches back nearly two decades.
At the center of the litigation are Agudas Chasidei Chabad, which courts have recognized as the owner of 770 Eastern Parkway; Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, the owner of 784-788 Eastern Parkway; and Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., the corporate entity associated with the Gabboim.
The buildings encompass the central Lubavitch shul as well as offices and other facilities. For years, the Gabboim have been involved in the everyday administration of the shul.
The dispute has traveled through several levels of New York’s judicial system, including Supreme Court, the Appellate Division and Civil Court.
In an earlier Supreme Court case, Agudas and Merkos secured an ejectment judgment against Congregation Lubavitch, Inc. involving 770 and 784-788 Eastern Parkway. The court determined that Agudas and Merkos were the respective property owners and were entitled to possession. The Appellate Division later upheld the portion of that judgment ejecting CLI from the properties.
A subsequent phase of the litigation began when Agudas and Merkos initiated summary proceedings seeking possession of their respective premises.
Agudas brought proceedings involving 770 Eastern Parkway, while Merkos pursued proceedings relating to 784-788 Eastern Parkway. Merkos additionally commenced a separate proceeding over office space at 302-304 Kingston Avenue, identified during the litigation as the “Gaboyim-CLI Office.”
After conducting a non-jury trial, the Civil Court issued judgments on January 6, 2022, granting possession to the respective petitioners.
The Gabboim and Congregation Lubavitch appealed those judgments.
That appeal resulted in a January 19, 2024 ruling by the Appellate Term that was considerably more complicated than some accounts of the decision indicated.
The Appellate Term dismissed the cases against several entities that had improperly been named as unincorporated associations and vacated the judgments entered against those entities.
Regarding Congregation Lubavitch, Inc., the court modified the judgments covering 770 and 784-788 Eastern Parkway. It vacated the portions entered against CLI and dismissed those portions of the petitions. The court nevertheless upheld the judgment concerning the office at 302-304 Kingston Avenue.
The reason the proceedings involving CLI and the Eastern Parkway properties were dismissed was largely the doctrine of res judicata, which generally bars parties from relitigating claims that have already received a final judicial determination.
The Appellate Term cited the earlier Supreme Court ejectment litigation, observing that CLI had already been ejected from 770 and 784-788 Eastern Parkway and that the relevant judgment had subsequently been affirmed by the Appellate Division.
Because the question of possession from CLI at those properties had already been adjudicated, the Appellate Term concluded that the later proceedings seeking possession of those same premises from CLI were barred by the previous judgment.
The Kingston Avenue office presented a different situation.
Because the 302-304 Kingston Avenue property had not been included in the earlier ejectment litigation, the Appellate Term found that the proceeding concerning that space was not barred by res judicata. It therefore allowed the judgment regarding that office to stand.
The Appellate Term also turned aside claims that secular courts lacked jurisdiction to resolve the dispute because of its religious dimensions.
The court concluded that questions involving property ownership and possession could be decided through “neutral principles of law,” such as examining deeds, corporate records and bylaws, without requiring judges to rule on matters of religious doctrine.
The Gabboim and CLI subsequently sought another opportunity to challenge the January 2024 decision.
In June 2024, the Appellate Term rejected motions asking it to reconsider its January ruling or, alternatively, to permit an appeal to the Appellate Division.
That denial left another procedural avenue available: asking the Appellate Division directly for permission to hear an appeal.
It was that effort that culminated in Thursday’s decision.
Lipskier, Holtzberg and Kievman asked the Appellate Division for leave to appeal the Appellate Term’s January 19, 2024 ruling.
After reviewing papers submitted in support of and in opposition to their application, the Appellate Division refused to grant permission.
Unlike the extensive January 2024 ruling, Thursday’s order does not reconsider the evidence or analyze the competing arguments regarding ownership, possession, religious questions or the other issues that have surfaced during the litigation.
Its determination is procedural and narrow: the court declined to permit the requested additional appeal.
The practical importance of the decision therefore centers on what remains in place.
The January 2024 Appellate Term ruling continues to govern this particular round of litigation, with the latest effort to secure review by the Appellate Division now unsuccessful.
That decision also exists alongside the earlier Supreme Court and Appellate Division rulings concerning CLI’s ejectment from 770 and 784-788 Eastern Parkway. Indeed, those earlier decisions were the basis for the Appellate Term’s conclusion in 2024 that the subsequent possession claims against CLI were barred by res judicata.
Thursday’s order does not newly rule that the Gabboim must physically leave the shul, nor does it issue a separate determination governing the everyday operation or administration of 770. Its immediate effect is to shut down another attempted route for appellate review of the January 2024 ruling.
Throughout the long-running fight, New York courts have addressed distinct questions involving legal ownership of the properties, the right to possession and the practical administration of the shul — issues that should not be treated as interchangeable.
After years of litigation across multiple courts, the August 28 order marks another significant procedural setback for the Gabboim and further narrows the remaining avenues for challenging the rulings that have shaped the legal battle over 770.
