BB Doe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

BB Doe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn 2021 NY Slip Op 32187(U) November 4, 2021 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 520353/2021 Judge: Deborah A. Kaplan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*[FILED: 1] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 12:31 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 520353/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------X BB DOE, Index .N"!!. 520353/2021 Plaintiff, -againstROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN et al. Defendants -------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. DEBORAH A. KAPLAN: With the instant application plaintiff moves, by Order to Show Cause, for permission from this com1 to proceed in anonymity during this action. Defendant opposes the application. ARGUMENT Plaintiff argues that allowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym would spare plaintiff from the stigmatization and potential embarrassment that may arise as the result of the adjudication of this matter in a public fomm. Plaintiff, like other similarly situated plaintiffs. is especially concerned about renewed scrutiny that may ensue due to New York State's enactment of the Child Victims Act (L 20 I 9 c. I I) ("CVA") which, inter alia. (I) extends the statute of limitations on criminal cases involving certain sex offenses against children under 18 (see CPL §30.10 [f] ); (2) extends the time which civil actions based upon such criminal conduct may be brought until the child victim reaches 55 years old (sec CPLR §208 [b)); and (3) opens a one-year window reviving civi I actions for which the statute of limitations has already run ( even in cases that were litigated and dismissed on limitations grounds). commencing six months after the effective date of the measure. i.e. August 14, 2019 (see CPLR §214-g). Indeed. plaintiff maintains that this case is likely to draw attention from the media. and if plaintiff is not allowed to proceed under a pseudonym, increased media attention may lead to a chilling effect that may inhibit plaintiff and other alleged victims of abuse from coming forward. In opposition defendant ST. FRANCIS MONASTERY a/ka THE CONGREGATION OF FRANCISCAN BROTHERS OF BROOKLYN s/h/a FRANCISCAN BROTHERS, INC.: and FRANCISCAN BROTHERS OF BROOKLYN a/k/a CONGREGATION OF THE RELIGIOUS BROTHERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF REGULAR OF ST. FRANCIS ("defendant") argues that the instant application should be denied because plaintiffs' application is not supported by specific facts and only supported by an attorney's affirmation. 2 2 of 5 [*[FILED: 2] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 12:31 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 520353/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021 DISCUSSION In gcncraL "[t]he detem1ination of whether to allow a plaintiff to proceed anonymously requires the court to use its discretion in balancing plaintiffs privacy interest against the presumption in favor of open trials and against any prejudice to defendant" (Ano11y111011s 1·. Lerner, 124 AD3d 487. 487 [1st Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see J. Doe No. l v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 24 AD3d 2 I 5 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Doe v. Szul Jewelry, Inc., 2008 NY Slip Op 31382 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008 J). Among the recognized values of open access to civil proceedings is that "the bright light cast upon the judicial process by public observation diminishes the possibilities for injustice. incompetence. perjury. and fraud" (Danco Lahs. 1·. Chemical Work, o_fGedeon Richter. 274 AD2d 1. 7. [1st Dept 2000]). Like\vise, the very openness of the process should provide the public "'with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness" and serves to "ensure that the proceedings are conducted efficiently. honestly and fairly" (Danco. 274 AD2d at 7. supra). However, the right of the public, and the press, to access judicial proceedings is not absolute or unfettered, and involves judicial discretion (Lerner, 124 AD3d at 487, supra). Moreover. access may still be respected in keeping with constitutional requirements while sensitive information is restricted in keeping with "the State's legitimate concern for the wellbeing" of an individual ( Glohe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 45 7 U.S. 596, 606 [ 1982 ]). A plaintiffs privacy interests, although not recognized under New York State's common law, are found in the Civil Rights Law ("CRL '") (see Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc., 64 NY2d 174, 182 [1984]: Arrington v. New York Times Co., 55 NY2d 433, 440 [1982]). Indeed. pursuant to CRL *50-b "'The identity of any victim of a sex offense. as defined in article one hundred thirty or section 255.25, 255.26, or 255.27 of the penal law, or of an offense in\'olving the alleged transmission of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. shall be confidential. ... " However, this statute docs not apply to everyone claiming to have been the victim of a sexual assault. Rather, the statute was enacted to spare victims of sexual assault the embarrassment of being publicly identified in the news media and to encourage such victims to cooperate in the prosecution of sexual offenses (see Ne\v York Bill Jacket. 1999 S.B. 5539. Ch. 643 ). Courts have afforded victims of sexual offenses protection under CRL §50-b where there has either been an arrest and prosecution. or there is an investigation (see People r. McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10 [ 1993 J). In addition. while "fi]t is elementary that the primary function of a pleading is to apprise an adverse party of the pleader's claim'' the same does not necessarily apply to a pleader's name (Cole v. Mandell Food Stores, Inc .. 93 NY2d 34. 40 (I999][emphasis added]). The instant case involves alleged acts that will no doubt center on information about plaintiff of a sensitive and highly personal nature. The court recognizes that plaintiff~ as the alleged \'ictim of sexual abuse. has arguably suffered great emotional distress. Indeed. plaintiffs counsel argues in support of the instant application that plaintiff suffers from the lingering effects of emotional distress and embarrassment as a result of the alleged abuse at issue here. Moreo\'er, plaintiff avers that denial of plaintiffs present application would chill plaintiff, and other alleged victims of child sexual abuse, from coming forward with their claims. 3 3 of 5 [*[FILED: 3] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 12:31 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 520353/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021 Herc. the balance weighs in favor of plaintiff because defendant will be permitted to know the name of the plaintiff and conduct discovery. By revealing plaintiffs name to defendant. any claimed prejudice is eliminated. In contrast. plaintiffs name will not be revealed to the public with a grant of this application and does not hann defendant. As pre,·iously alluded to, revelation of plaintiffs name could unsettle plaintiff and perhaps deter plaintiff from litigating this matter. Such an outcome would undoubtedly undenninc the very purpose for which the CV A was enacted. To be sure, rl'vclation of plaintiff's identity would undermine the litigation by denying a portion of the relief ultimately requested in the action. Defendant has failed to advance any legitimate reason why plaintiff should not be afforded the protection of anonymity in this case. Defendant's argument that plaintiffs failure to submit an affidavit is also unpersuasive. The First Department has already rejected this argument (Joh11 Doe 1·. Yeshiva University et al. 146 NYS3d 482, 482-483 [ I st Dept 2021 ]). This court disagrees with defendant's interpretation. The plaintiff here has demonstrated facts specific to the instant matter and need not be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff. The CY A was enacted with the protections codified under CRL §50-b in mind. To be sure, the legislature wanted to avoid exposing alleged victims to the lasting scars of broadcasted exposure while "help[ing] the public identify hidden child predators through civil litigation discovery. and shift the significant and lasting costs of child sexual abuse to the responsible parties:· Considering the foregoing. it is axiomatic that plaintiff should be afforded the protection of anonymity. Defendant's attacks on the ,iability ofCRL §50-b to this proceeding are unavailing. While it is argued that no criminal prosecution has ever been initiated based on the alleged sexual misconduct at issue in this ci,·il suit. the mere existence of the CY A. a claim revival statute, presupposes that a criminal investigation could still be initiated against individuals currently or fom1erly employed by defendant. To be sure, numerous criminal and civil prosecutions predicated upon otherwise time-barred claims have been advanced since the enactment of the CY A. At the end of the day, a grant of anonymity by this court impacts far less on the public's right to open proceedings than does the actual closing of a courtroom or the sealing of records. Ultimately, in this com1's view. the public has an interest in seeing this case determined on its merits. after the parties have had an opportunity to fully and properly litigate the issues presented. Anonymity. at this juncture, will preserve the integrity of that stated objective. Accordingly. plaintiffs application seeking anonymity is granted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to file a complaint and proceed herein under a pseudonym. rather than in plaintiffs legal name, and to proceed throughout this action under such pseudonym, rather than in plaintiffs own name, is granted; and it is further ORDERED that in accordance with this court's decision and order, the parties are directed to comply with the conditions contained within this court's Case Management Orders; and it is fi.Jrther 4 4 of 5 [*[FILED: 4] KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/05/2021 12:31 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 22 INDEX NO. 520353/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/05/2021 ORDERED that plaintiff serve a copy of this decision, with notice of entry. upon defendants within 20 days of this court's decision and order: and it is further ORDERED that the court shall issue a separate notice to the parties regarding a future appearance in this matter. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court. Dated: November 4, 2021 DEBORAH A. KAPLAN, J.S.C. 5 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.