S. H. v. Diocese of Brooklyn

• Decision Date: 04 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2020–07387,Index No. 517999/19
• Citation: 205 A.D.3d 180,167 N.Y.S.3d 171
• Parties: S. H., appellant, v. DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

205 A.D.3d 180

167 N.Y.S.3d 171

S. H., appellant,

v.DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, respondent.

2020–07387

Index No. 517999/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—September 28, 2021

May 4, 2022

Herman Law, New York, NY (Jeffrey M. Herman, Stuart Mermelstein, and Jason Sandler of counsel), for appellant.

Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Christopher Simone, Robert M. Ortiz, and Jeremy S. Rosof of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LINDA CHRISTOPHER, PAUL WOOTEN, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

OPINION & ORDER

CHRISTOPHER, J.

Introduction

This appeal raises issues of first impression concerning whether CPLR 214–g, the statute enacted as part of the New York Child Victims Act that revives time-barred causes of action brought by survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is available to a nonresident plaintiff where the alleged acts of abuse occurred outside New York, and moreover, whether CPLR 202, New York's "borrowing" statute, limits the statutory period under which a cause of action that accrued outside New York may be brought when the statute of limitations of that state has passed. For the reasons that follow, we hold that under the circumstances of this case, CPLR 214–g is not available to nonresident plaintiffs where the alleged acts of abuse occurred outside New York and that CPLR 214–g does not preclude the application of CPLR 202 in determining the appropriate limitations period for a cause of action that accrued outside the State.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, a Florida resident, alleges that from approximately fall 1983 through spring 1984, when he was 14 to 15 years old, while serving as an altar boy at All Souls Church in Sanford, Florida, within the Diocese of Orlando, he was sexually abused on multiple occasions by Father William Authenrieth, who had been ordained by the defendant, the Diocese of Brooklyn, in 1962. The plaintiff alleges that, after he was ordained, Father Authenrieth was initially assigned to a church in Brooklyn, but in October 1973 he was transferred by the defendant to the Diocese of Orlando after the defendant became aware of his "sexual misconduct with children."

In 2013, the plaintiff, designated as John Doe No. 102, commenced an action (hereinafter the Florida action) in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Orange County, Florida, against the Diocese of Orlando to recover damages for psychological injuries allegedly sustained by him as a result of sexual abuse committed against him by Father Authenrieth in the 1980s when Father Authenrieth was serving in the Diocese of Orlando. In November 2013, the Diocese of Orlando moved to dismiss the complaint in the Florida action on the ground that it was time-barred under Florida's four year statute of limitations for negligence actions. In May 2014, the Circuit Court denied the Diocese of Orlando's motion. On November 6, 2015, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the complaint in the Florida action with prejudice.

The Florida action was one of a group of actions brought in Florida against the Diocese of Orlando alleging child sexual abuse by Father Authenrieth. The lead action in that group was commenced by a plaintiff known as John Doe No. 93. The complaint filed by John Doe No. 93 also named the Diocese of Brooklyn as a defendant. However, on October 21, 2013, after the Diocese of Brooklyn moved to dismiss the complaint filed by John Doe No. 93 insofar as asserted against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, John Doe No. 93 voluntarily discontinued the complaint insofar as asserted against the Diocese of Brooklyn.

In 2019 and 2020, the plaintiff, as well as others claiming to be sexual abuse survivors, commenced actions in New York against the defendant pursuant to CPLR 214–g, known as the "revival statute," enacted as part of New York's Child Victims Act, asserting causes of action to recover damages for negligence. The plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint, inter alia, "upon information and belief" that the defendant transferred Father Authenrieth to the Diocese of Orlando when it knew or should have known that Father Authenrieth posed a foreseeable danger to children, in that he would commit acts of child sexual abuse, and that the defendant breached its duty to warn the Diocese of Orlando thereof. The plaintiff alleges that the transfer was made in accordance with a policy of secrecy and a general pattern and practice of concealing sexual abuse by clergy and protecting the defendant from scandal and liability. The plaintiff further alleges that "Father Authenrieth was a serial sexual predator who sexually abused numerous children over decades during his assignments in the Diocese of Brooklyn and the Diocese of Orlando." The plaintiff asserts that as a proximate result of the defendant's negligence, he suffered permanent psychological, emotional, and physical injuries and the inability to lead a normal life caused by the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated upon him by Father Authenrieth.

Prior to joining issue, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint as time-barred. Pursuant to a stipulation entered into on August 13, 2020, the defendant's motion to dismiss in this action was treated as a coordinated motion, the determination of which would also govern four other actions with common issues that were pending against this defendant. In an order dated August 14, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The court found that CPLR 214–g did not apply to the plaintiff's time-barred claims, so as to revive them, inasmuch as the alleged sexual abuse did not occur in New York. The court also determined, inter alia, that CPLR 202, New York's borrowing statute, was controlling as to the determination of the timeliness of this action, and that pursuant thereto the action was time-barred based on Florida's shorter limitations period. The court subsequently entered a judgment dated August 21, 2020, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff dismissing the amended complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

The Child Victims Act

The Child Victims Act (hereinafter CVA), among other things, provides for amendments with regard to certain statutes of limitations with respect to sex crimes committed against children less than 18 years of age. The CVA provides, inter alia, that civil actions brought by any person for physical, psychological, or other injury suffered as a result of conduct that would constitute a sex crime, that was committed against such person when they were less than 18 years of age, may now be commenced against any party "whose intentional or negligent acts or omissions are alleged to have resulted in the commission of [such] conduct" up until the date the plaintiff reaches the age of 55 ( CPLR 208[b] ). Prior to the enactment of the CVA, the applicable statute of limitations for such actions typically would begin to run when the victim reached the age of 18 (see id. former § 208 [L 1986, ch 485, § 1]).

CPLR 214–g was enacted as part of the CVA. CPLR 214–g originally opened a one-year window reviving civil claims or causes of action alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions that seek to recover for injuries suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute sex crimes, which conduct was committed against a child less than 18 years of age, for which the statute of limitations had already run.^* CPLR 214–g provides, in pertinent part, that:

"Notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary ..., every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, or the use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law, or a predecessor statute that prohibited such conduct at the time of the act, which conduct was committed against a child less than eighteen years of age, which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired, and/or the plaintiff previously failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than two years and six months after the effective date of this section. In any such claim or action: ... (b) dismissal of a previous action, ordered before the effective date of this section, on grounds that such previous action was time barred, and/or for failure of a party to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, shall not be grounds for dismissal of a revival action pursuant to this section."

The interpretation of this statutory language presents questions of law for this Court to resolve de novo (see Weingarten v. Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Teachers’ Retirement Sys., 98 N.Y.2d 575, 580, 750 N.Y.S.2d 573, 780 N.E.2d 174 ). "It is fundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature" ( Majewski v. Broadalbin–Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583, 673 N.Y.S.2d 966, 696 N.E.2d 978 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Background and Legislative History of the Child Victims Act

The plaintiff argues that the language of CPLR 214–g unambiguously allows this lawsuit and therefore we need not resort to legislative history. He further contends that, in the event there is ambiguity, the legislative history supports his claim that the legislature did not intend to impose a limitation based on where the sexual act took...