From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

J.A.F. v. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 9, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

Index No. 950398/20 No. 224 Case No. 2021-04273

05-09-2023

J.A.F., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Defendant-Respondent Marist Brothers of the Schools, Inc. Doing Business as The Marist Brothers Province of the United States of America et al., Defendants.

Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Matthew Shock of counsel), for appellant. Leahey & Johnson, P.C., New York (Peter James Johnson of counsel), for respondent.


Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Matthew Shock of counsel), for appellant.

Leahey & Johnson, P.C., New York (Peter James Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Webber, J.P., Kern, Friedman, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered October 5, 2021, which granted so much of the motion of defendant The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In consonance with this Court's decision in J.D. v Archdiocese of N.Y., 214A.D.3d 216 [1st Dept 2023]), we determine that the documentary evidence submitted by the Archdiocese in support of its CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint against it failed to "utterly refute" the allegations in the complaint that plaintiff's abusers, Marist Brother Timothy Brady and Father Bernard J. Lynch, were agents of the Archdiocese, that the Archdiocese exercised supervision and control over their appointment or employ, and that a special relationship existed between plaintiff, the Archdiocese, and the other defendants (see id.; see generally Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326-327 [2002]). For instance, the deed only indicated that the Archdiocese did not legally own the premises where the alleged abuse occurred. The deed did not foreclose the possibility that the alleged abusers were agents of the Archdiocese, or that the Archdiocese had supervisory authority over them. Accordingly, the Archdiocese failed to conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law.


Summaries of

J.A.F. v. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.

Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 9, 2023
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

J.A.F. v. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:J.A.F., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 9, 2023

Citations

2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 2455 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Citing Cases

In re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr.

At the Hearing and in the Garabedian Response, counsel relied on two cases in the New York Supreme Court…

E.P. v. Archdiocese of N.Y.

Furthermore, this Court determines that the deed and the Certificates of Incorporation, for the purpose of a…