The Lily Dale Assembly is appealing a state Supreme Court decision denying its attempt to have two assembly residents removed.

Judge Grace Hanlon of state Supreme Court in Mayville ruled in mid-November in favor of Robert and Danielle Reuther, Lily Dale filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court in 2022 seeking to have Robert and Danielle Reuther removed from the spiritualist community over a dispute over annual business and licensing fees related to a guest house the Reuthers operated on their Fourth Street, Lily Dale, address.

The Reuthers stopped paying the $1,000 fee in 2019, prompting the assembly to claim the contract had been breached and giving reason to have the Reuthers removed from the assembly.

In an answer submitted to the state Supreme Court in September 2022, the Reuthers said the claims in Lily Dale’s complaint aren’t authorized under state law, the state constitution, the Lily Dale Assembly bylaws, rules or regulations and, further, that the actions taken by Lily Dale constitute harassment, discrimination and abuse of process against the Reuthers. The Reuthers also say they did not enter into agreements on the terms Lily Dale alleges and can’t prove the Reuthers violated the material terms of any binding or valid contract.

Lily Dale officials renewed their efforts to have the Reuthers removed earlier this year after the case sat dormant for about a year. In October, Hanlon ruled on Lily Dale’s claim for summary judgment against the Reuthers, denying the claim and disagreeing with Lily Dale that there was clear language showing the Reuthers agreed to follow the community’s bylaws, rules and regulations in exchange for living on the Lily Dale Grounds.Ambiguity within the documents the Reuthers received, Hanlon wrote, courts have held courts should not grant requests for summary judgment.

“The court disagrees and it is unclear when and if the Reuthers received a copy of the by-laws and rules,” Hanlon wrote before continuing, “This case involves the interpretation of contractual language within three separate documents, and viewing the language within all the documents is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”

The case will now move on to the Fourth Department Appellate Division in Rochester.