ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Clergy members who disclose confidential information about parishioners can't face financial liability for their actions, the state's highest court ruled Tuesday.
The Court of Appeals agreed 7-0 that while state law recognizes a right of confidentiality for statements made to clergy by penitents, it does not allow for lawsuits if confidentiality is breached.
The determination means Chani Lightman of New York City cannot sue two Orthodox rabbis, Tzvi Flaum and David Weinberger, who she contends repeated statements she made in confidence to them about her marital difficulties.
Both rabbis said Lightman told them in 1995 that she had stopped observing some Orthodox Jewish requirements as her marriage to Hylton Lightman was falling apart.
After Chani Lightman filed for divorce in 1996 and sought custody of the couple's four children, her husband filed affirmations from the two rabbis in an apparent attempt to show Chani Lightman would not raise the children as Orthodox Jews.
The Court of Appeals ruled that while Chani Lightman ``understandably resents'' the disclosures, state law provides no grounds for trying to recover money from the rabbis.
Lawyers for the rabbis argued they felt bound by Jewish law to make the disclosures and that holding them liable would violate their First Amendment right to practice their religion.
The rabbis also argued that since third parties attended their meetings with Chani Lightman they believed her comments were not confidential.
``The Court of Appeals has now ruled you cannot sue a clergyman for breach of your confidence,'' said Chani Lightman's lawyer, Abe H. Konstam. ``I think that's terrible.''
Nathan Lewin, a lawyer with the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, called the ruling a ``strong affirmance of the importance of independent judgment by religious authorities.''
``For a civil court to be second-guessing rabbis on a matter of their religious principles would be unconstitutional,'' he said.
It could not be immediately determined Tuesday who won custody of the four children. Court papers do not go into details of the custody dispute, and Konstam declined to say whether his client was granted custodial rights.