Opinion
12-28-2023
ARK 55, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, Loyola School, Defendant–Respondent.
Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., New York (Trusha P. Goffe of counsel), for appellant. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York (Gershon Akerman of counsel), for respondent.Order,
Jeff Anderson & Associates, P.A., New York (Trusha P. Goffe of counsel), for appellant.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York (Gershon Akerman of counsel), for respondent.Order,
Kern, J.P., Gesmer, Moulton, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered on or about September 19, 2022, which granted defendant Loyola School’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
[1] Plaintiff’s complaint states causes of action for negligence, negligent training and supervision and negligent retention, and greater specificity is not required at this pre-answer stage in the litigation (see G.T. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 211 A.D.3d 413, 413, 180 N.Y.S.3d 75 [1st Dept. 2022]; Davila v. Orange County, 215 A.D.3d 632, 635, 187 N.Y.S.3d 261 [2d Dept. 2023]). Plaintiff also sufficiently pleads a nexus between Loyola’s alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injuries (see Waterbury v. New York City Ballet, Inc., 205 A.D.3d 154, 162, 168 N.Y.S.3d 417 [1st Dept. 2022]).
[2] Loyola’s argument that, even if the causes of action are sufficiently pleaded, the complaint fails because plaintiff did not plead with specificity the acts that rendered this action timely pursuant to CPLR 214–g, is unpersuasive. The complaint alleges unpermitted sexual contact with a minor which was behavior violative of several sections of Penal Law article 130, thereby triggering CPLR 214–g and rendering the action timely (see Brown v. University of Rochester, 216 A.D.3d 1328, 189 N.Y.S.3d 801 [3d Dept. 2023]; Matter of M.C. v. State of New York, 74 Misc.3d 682, 694–695, 163 N.Y.S.3d 741 [Ct. Cl. 2022]).