Sharon B. v. Reverend S.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1997
• Citation: Sharon B. v. Reverend S., 665 N.Y.S.2d 139, 244 A.D.2d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9971 SHARON B., Appellant, v. REVEREND S., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 139

665 N.Y.S.2d 139

244 A.D.2d 878, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 9971

SHARON B., Appellant, v.REVEREND S., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

Nov. 19, 1997.

Sheila G. Graziano, Buffalo, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Connors & Vilardo(Terrence M. Connors, of counsel), Buffalo, for Defendants-Respondents Visitation Church Society, Diocese of Buffalo, New York.

Scinta, Rinaldo & Dee by Dennis Scinta, Buffalo, for Defendant-Respondent Reverend S.

Before GREEN, J.P., and LAWTON, WISNER, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Reverend S. to dismiss the complaint because it was time-barred.The gravamen of the complaint against Reverend S. is that he sexually abused plaintiff during the course of a pastoral counseling relationship that ended in 1990.Regardless of how it is pleaded, sexual abuse is an intentional tort subject to a one-year Statute of Limitations (see, Joshua S. v. Casey, 206 A.D.2d 839, 615 N.Y.S.2d 200;Doe v. Roe, 192 A.D.2d 1089, 1090, 596 N.Y.S.2d 620;Mazzaferro v. Albany Motel Enters., 127 A.D.2d 374, 376, 515 N.Y.S.2d 631;see also, CPLR 215[3] ), and plaintiff's commencement of this action against Reverend S. in November 1993 was untimely.Plaintiff failed to establish that the Statute of Limitations was tolled by reason of insanity (see, CPLR 208;McCarthy v. Volkswagen of Am., 55 N.Y.2d 543, 548-549, 450 N.Y.S.2d 457, 435 N.E.2d 1072) or that she was "wrongfully induced * * * to refrain from timely commencing an action by deception, concealment, threats or other misconduct" and thus that defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense (Zoe G. v. Frederick F. G., 208 A.D.2d 675, 617 N.Y.S.2d 370).Further, we reject the contentions that the doctrine of duress (see, Overall v. Estate of L.H.P. Klotz, 52 F.3d 398, 404-405;see also, Steo v. Cucuzza, 213 A.D.2d 624, 626, 624 N.Y.S.2d 203;Zoe G. v. Frederick F. G., supra) and the "delayed discovery" rule (see, Bassile v. Covenant House, 191 A.D.2d 188, 594 N.Y.S.2d 192, lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 656, 604 N.Y.S.2d 47, 624 N.E.2d 177) have any application to this case.

The court erred, however, in dismissing the complaint against the Diocese of Buffalo, New York (Diocese), the Bishop of the Diocese and President of the Diocesan Corporation(Bishop), the Chancellor and Vicar General of the Diocese and Secretary of the Diocesan Corporation(Vicar General), and the Parish.The complaint states a cause of action against those defendants for negligent retention or supervision of Reverend S. (see, Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 164-165, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791, cert. denied--- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 413, 139 L.Ed.2d 316;Doe v. Hartz, 970 F.Supp. 1375, 1427-1432;Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310, 323-329, cert. denied511 U.S. 1137, 114 S.Ct. 2153, 128 L.Ed.2d 880;Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275, 286-288[Colo.];Does 1--9 v. Compcare, Inc., 52 Wash.App. 688, 694-695, 763 P.2d 1237, 1241-1242).Further, plaintiff should have the opportunity to conduct discovery concerning the knowledge of the Diocese and Parish, and their officers and administrators, regarding prior conduct of Reverend S. (see, CPLR 3211[d] ).

The three-year Statute of Limitations applies to a...