Doe v. Diocese of Brooklyn

• Docket Number: Index No. 513001/20
• Decision Date: 20 June 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 32051 (U)
• Parties: ARK317 DOE, Plaintiff, v. DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN a/k/a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK; ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK; ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER OF NEW YORK a/k/a SAINT VINCENT CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTERS OF NEW YORK; ST. SEBASTIAN'S a/k/a ST. SEBASTIAN; and DOES 1-5 whose identities are unknown to plaintiff, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

1

2023 NY Slip Op 32051(U)

ARK317 DOE, Plaintiff,
v.
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN a/k/a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK; ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK; ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER OF NEW YORK a/k/a SAINT VINCENT CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTERS OF NEW YORK; ST. SEBASTIAN'S a/k/a ST. SEBASTIAN; and DOES 1-5 whose identities are unknown to plaintiff, Defendants.

Index No. 513001/20

Supreme Court, Kings County

June 20, 2023

Unpublished Opinion

PRESENT: HON. ROBIN S. GARSON, Justice.

ROBIN S. GARSON, JUDGE.

2

The following e-filed papers read herein:	NYSCEF Doc Nos.:
Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed	15-16 18-19
Opposing Affidavits/ Answer (Affirmations)	31
Affidavits/ Affirmations in Reply	47
Other Papers:

Upon the foregoing papers, defendant Archdiocese of New York (Archdiocese) moves for an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissing plaintiffs complaint based on documentary evidence; (2) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action; or alternatively (3) pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting the Archdiocese summary judgment dismissing the complaint (motion sequence number 2).

3

The Archdiocese's motion (motion sequence number 1) is denied.

In this revival action based on the Child Victims Act (CVA) (CPLR 214-g; L 2019, ch 11, § 3, as amended by L 2020, ch 130, § 1), plaintiff alleges that, from approximately 1970 to 1972, when he was approximately 13 to 15 years old, he was sexually abused by Father James I.L. Frost, a Roman Catholic priest who was under the employ, supervision and control of the Archdiocese and defendants Diocese of Brooklyn, St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York (St. Vincent), and St. Sebastian's (Complaint, at ¶¶ 20, 24). As is relevant to the Archdiocese, plaintiff alleges that, while hospitalized at St. Vincent, he came into contact with Father Frost when he (plaintiff) was participating in youth activities and/or church activities that occurred at St. Vincent, that St. Vincent was under the direct authority, control and province of the Archdiocese, that the Archdiocese had jurisdiction over youth activities and programs within the Archdiocese, and that Archdiocese had the power to appoint, supervise, and remove/terminate each and every person working with children within the Archdiocese, including Father Frost (Complaint, at ¶¶ 11-13, 22-24). Based on these allegations of control, and allegations that plaintiff was a youth in the custody of the Archdiocese when he participated in the youth programs, plaintiff asserts that the Archdiocese had a special relationship with plaintiff and Father Frost and a concomitant duty to control the latter's conduct and protect plaintiff (Complaint, at ¶¶ 28-36). In moving, the Archdiocese contends that it is entitled to

4

dismissal or summary judgment on the ground that it owed no duty to plaintiff because the Archdiocese did not own, control or supervise St. Vincent or its employees or agents.^[1]

Under CPLR 3211 (a) (1), a dismissal is warranted only if "the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law" (Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326 [2002]; see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 88 [1994]). "To constitute documentary evidence, the evidence must be 'unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable'" (Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806, 807 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Granada Condominium III Assn, v. Palomino, 78 A.D.3d 996, 997 [2d Dept 2010]), "such as judicial records and documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable" (Phillips, 152 A.D.3d at 807). "Conversely, letters, emails, and ... affidavits, do not meet the requirements for documentary evidence" (id.).

On a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a court must "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" (Leon, 84 N.Y.2d at 87-88; see Boyle v. North Salem Cent. Sch. Dist., 208 A.D.3d 744, 745 [2d Dept 2022]; Doe v. Enlarged City Sch. Dist. of Middletown,

5

195 A.D.3d 595, 596 [2d Dept 2021]). "Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish [his or her] allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" (EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs &Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11, 19 [2005]). "Upon the submission of evidentiary material in support of such a motion, the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one and, unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a...