John JH Doe v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

John JH Doe v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. 2023 NY Slip Op 33157(U) August 31, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 950901/2021 Judge: Alexander M. Tisch 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. 950901/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: 18 PART HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X JOHN JH DOE, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 950901/2021 02/25/2022 003 -VROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, ALL HALLOWS HIGH SCHOOL, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46, 53, 54 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS Upon the foregoing papers, defendant Archdiocese of New York ("Archdiocese" or "defendant") moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) or, alternatively, pursuant to CPLR 3212. The complaint alleges as follows: In or around 1975, plaintiffs family regularly attended religious services at an Archdiocese parish, where plaintiff also attended grammar school. In or around 1975, Brother Timothy O'Sullivan sexually abused plaintiff by engaging the then-minor plaintiff in sexual contact that would violate Article 130 of the New York Penal Law. In determining dismissal under CPLR Rule 3211 (a) (7), the "complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction" (Goldfarb v Schwartz, 26 AD3d 462, 463 [2d Dept 2006]). The "allegations are presumed to be true and accorded every favorable inference" (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358,373 [2009]). "[T]he sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). Additionally, "[w]hether a plaintiff can 950901/2021 DOE, JOHN JH vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 003 [* 1] 1 of 4 Page 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 950901/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2023 ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]). A motion to dismiss a complaint based upon documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) "may be appropriately granted where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegation, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter oflaw" (Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofN.Y., 98 NY2d 314,326 [2002]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). Not every piece of evidence in the form of a document is properly deemed "documentary evidence." The appellate courts have noted this distinction, finding that legislative history and supporting cases make it clear that "judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are 'essentially undeniable,' would qualify as 'documentary evidence' in the proper case" (Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78, 86 [2d Dept 2010]; Amsterdam Hosp. Grp., LLC v Marshall-Alan Assocs., Inc., 120 AD3d 431,432 [1st Dept 2014]). In support of its motion defendant submits a copy of the property deed for All Hallows located at 111 East 164th Street, Bronx, NY; the affidavit of the Archdiocese of New York's general counsel, Roderick Cassidy, Esq.; and the certificate of incorporation for the Christian Brother's Institute. Defendant argues that the evidence shows that the defendants are independent entities and that the Archdiocese did not own the school property, did not have any involvement in the administration of the school, and did not supervise or employ any of the school's faculty, staff, or other employees, and did not provide any funding or insurance coverage to All Hallows. The fact that the co-defendants are separately formed entities does not negate the possibility that, as alleged in the complaint, the Archdiocese had any control over All Hallows, and/or its employees or agents (see generally Engelman v Rofe, 194 AD3d 26, 33-34 [1st Dept 2021] [the court is required to accept these allegations in the complaint as true]). 950901/2021 DOE, JOHN JH vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 003 [* 2] 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 950901/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2023 The affidavits submitted do not constitute "documentary evidence" within the meaning of CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (see J.D. v Archdiocese of New York, -AD3d-, 2023 NY Slip Op 01588 [1st Dept Mar. 23, 2023]; Correa v Orient-Express Hotels, Inc., 84 AD3d 651 [1st Dept 2011] citing, inter alia, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271 [1st Dept 2004]; Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78, 86 [2d Dept 2010] ["it is clear that affidavits and deposition testimony are not 'documentary evidence' within the intendment of a CPLR 321 l(a)(l) motion to dismiss"]). Further, although "a trial court may use affidavits in its consideration of a pleading motion to dismiss," where, as here, the Court declines to convert the motion into one for summary judgment, such affidavits "are not to be examined for the purpose of determining whether there is evidentiary support for the pleading" (Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., Inc., 40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]). Consequently, affidavits submitted from a defendant "will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211" (Lawrence v Miller, 11 NY3d 588, 595 [2008]) "unless [they] establish conclusively that plaintiff has no cause of action" (Rovello, 40 NY2d at 636). Here it cannot be said that defendant met its burden establishing that plaintiff has no claim against it as a matter of law because the affidavits are not conclusive particularly as to defendant's relationship with the co-defendants and/or the alleged abuser (see J.D., 2023 NY Slip Op 01588; Engelman, 194 AD3d at 33-34). It is important to note that an affidavit is not necessarily subject to cross examination and the issue of whether an agency or employment relationship exists sufficient to hold defendant liable for codefendants' acts and/or any defendant's negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care in hiring, supervising, or retaining the alleged abuser, may be a fact-intensive analysis as to the extent of defendant's power to order and control the agent's or employee's performance of work (see generally Castro-Quesada v Tuapanta, 148 AD3d 978, 979 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Barak v Chen, 87 AD3d 955, 957 [2d Dept 2011]; Griffin v Sirva, Inc., 29 NY3d 174, 185-86 [2017] [noting that factors as to whether one is an 950901/2021 DOE, JOHN JH vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 003 [* 3] 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 950901/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/07/2023 employer may include "'(1) the selection and engagement of the servant; (2) the payment of salary or wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power of control of the servant's conduct'"] quoting State Div. of Human Rights v GTE Corp., 109 AD2d 1082, 1083 [4th Dept 1985]). Defendant's alternate request for relief pursuant to CPLR 3212 is denied as well. First, CPLR 3212 (a) explicitly requires that issue be joined and defendant has not yet filed an answer (see Alro Builders and Contractors, Inc. v Chicken Koop, Inc., 78 AD2d 512,512 [1st Dept 1980]). Second, it is clear that discovery remains outstanding related to the issue mentioned above about the exact nature and scope of the relationship between defendant, co-defendants, and the tortfeasor, among others. Accordingly, summary judgment is premature (see Rutherford v Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp., 174 AD3d 932, 933 [2d Dept 2019]; Rodriguez Pastor v DeGaetano, 128 AD3d 218, 227-28 [1st Dept 2015]). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the movant shall file and serve an answer to the complaint within twenty (20) days from service of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall proceed with discovery pursuant to CMO No. 2, Section IX (B) (1) and submit a first compliance conference order within sixty (60) days after issue is joined. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 8/31/2023 DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 950901/2021 DOE, JOHN JH vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE Motion No. 003 [* 4] GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: 4 of 4 OTHER REFERENCE Page 4 of4

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.