SWNY 8 DOE v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SWNY 8 DOE v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. 2022 NY Slip Op 33001(U) September 7, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 950207/2021 Judge: Laurence L. Love 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. INDEX NO. 950207/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 PRESENT: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEWRECEIVED YORK NEW YORK COUNTY NYSCEF: 09/07/2022 PART HON. LAURENCE L. LOVE Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. SWNY 8 DOE, MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. -vROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, OUR LADY OF MT. CARMEL CHURCH, OUR LADY OF MT. CARMEL SCHOOL, SISTER ANNA A/K/A SISTER JANE DOE, FATHER JOHN DOE, DOES 1 THROUGH 5 63M 950207/2021 9/27/2021, 9/21/2021 002 003 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 36, 37, 39 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS . The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS . The following read on Defendant – Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and Our Lady of Mount Carmel School’s (“Mount Carmel Church and School”) motion to dismiss (mot. seq. no. 002), CPLR 3211(a)(7) – failure to state a cause of action, the third cause of action – breach of fiduciary duty, and the fourth cause of action – fraudulent concealment; and The Archdiocese of New York’s motion to dismiss, CPLR 3211(a)(7) – failure to state a cause of action, for the sixth cause of action – breach of fiduciary duty, and the seventh cause of action – fraudulent concealment. Defendant Archdiocese of New York submits an answer (see NSYCEF Doc. No. 23) as does Mount Carmel Church and School (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff alleges abuse per the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g, with causes of action against Sister […] and Father John Doe with causes of action for (i) assault, (ii) battery, and (iii) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and causes of action against the Archdiocese of New 950207/2021 DOE, SWNY 8 vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 002 003 [* 1] 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 950207/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2022 York, Mount Carmel Church and School, and Does 1 through 5 for (i) negligence, (ii) gross negligence, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, and (iv) fraudulent concealment. “On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction. We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 [1994]). When considering a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court must accept the factual allegations of the pleadings as true, affording the non-moving party the benefit of every possible favorable inference and determining “only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (see D.K. Prop., Inc. v. Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 168 A.D.3d 505; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP v. Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 267 [1st Dept. 2004]). FIDUCIARY DUTY “[A] fiduciary relationship exists between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matter within the scope of the relation” (see A.G. Capital Funding, LP v. State Street Bank and Trust, 11 N.Y.3d 146, 158 [2008]). Defendant – Mount Carmel Church and School argues, “[a]llegations that a fiduciary duty exists and/or that Plaintiff was a ‘minor child’ with nothing more is insufficient to establish a fiduciary duty, or any other higher duty, between Plaintiff and moving Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s relationship with these moving Defendants were unique in any way or different than any other parishioner/student at this Parish. In addition, the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is duplicative of Plaintiff’s other negligence claims and therefore should be dismissed” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 Pars. 12 – 14). 950207/2021 DOE, SWNY 8 vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 002 003 [* 2] 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 950207/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2022 Archdiocese of New York states, “Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s relationship with the Archdiocese was ‘unique or distinct’ in any way or any different than any other Roman Catholic parishioner practicing their faith within the Archdiocese’s geographical territory” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 Par. 16). Plaintiff’s memorandum of law counters, “[t]he facts alleged here go far beyond Plaintiff’s youth or status as a student at the time of his sexual abuse, and establish that Plaintiff was in a unique position of vulnerability when compared with the Mt. Carmel Defendants’ relationship with other parishioners/students generally” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 37 P. 7). Plaintiff addresses the duplicative issue. “It is well established that a party may plead alternative theories, even on the basis of allegations that contradict each other” (see Raglan Realty Corp. v. Tudor Hotel Corp., 540 N.Y.S.2d 240 [1st Dept. 1989]). “Plaintiff’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action are brought under two distinct theories” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 37 P. 11). “Mere allegations that a fiduciary duty exists, with nothing more, are insufficient. Assuming every fact alleged to be true and liberally construing the pleading in Plaintiff’s favor, the allegations for breach of fiduciary duty are insufficiently pled. Additionally, Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the fiduciary duty as pled here, is no different than the negligence causes of action. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty” (see Torrey v. Portville Central School, 66 Msc.3d 1225(A)*2 [2020]). FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT To state a claim for fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must allege “1) a duty to disclose material facts; 2) knowledge of material facts by a party bound to make such disclosures; 3) 950207/2021 DOE, SWNY 8 vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 002 003 [* 3] 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 INDEX NO. 950207/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2022 failure to discharge a duty to disclose; 4) scienter; 5) reliance; and 6) damages” (see Tears v. Boston Sci. Corp., 344 F.Supp.3d 500, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Defendant – Mount Carmel Church and School’s memorandum of law states, “Plaintiff never specifies the distinct representation that was made to Plaintiff or his guardians in his pleadings. Plaintiff fails to meet the pleadings requirement for fraud claims as provided by CPLR 3016(b) which states that where a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, willful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 18 Par. 15). Plaintiff argues, “[b]y virtue of her vaunted position within the Church, Sister […] was affirmatively endorsed as someone who could be trusted as a woman God (sic) and moral conviction” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 37 P. 12). Archdiocese of New York states, “Plaintiff has failed to establish that any fiduciary, confidential, or special relationship existed between plaintiff and the Archdiocese, and, therefore, failed to establish any duty to disclose on the party of the Archdiocese. Thus, absent a duty to disclose, plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. Moreover, plaintiff has alleged no facts as evidence for the conclusory statements that the Archdiocese ‘engaged in a conscious, deliberate plan to conceal abuse’ from plaintiff or any others” (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 27 Par. 23). CONCLUSION Through a read of all the papers plaintiff has failed the pleading requirements of a fiduciary duty and said cause of action is duplicative of the negligence cause of action. Further, 950207/2021 DOE, SWNY 8 vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 002 003 [* 4] 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5 INDEX NO. 950207/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 44 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2022 the fraudulent concealment cause of action has multiple elements that plaintiff has failed to fulfill. ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and the third cause of action – breach of fiduciary duty, and the fourth cause of action – fraudulent concealment against Mount Carmel Church and School are dismissed; and it is further ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and the sixth cause of action – breach of fiduciary duty, and the seventh cause of action – fraudulent concealment against Archdiocese of New York are dismissed. 9/7/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: $SIG$ LAURENCE L. LOVE, J.S.C. CASE DISPOSED GRANTED DENIED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION X GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 950207/2021 DOE, SWNY 8 vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 002 003 [* 5] X 5 of 5 OTHER REFERENCE Page 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.