ARK 301 v. Diocese of Brooklyn
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33419(U) (ARK 301 v. Diocese of Brooklyn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Kings County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ARK 301 v Diocese of Brooklyn 2024 NY Slip Op 33419(U) September 26, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 512965/2020 Judge: Sabrina B. Kraus Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/27/2024 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 512965/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/27/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS PART 57 Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 512965/2020 ARK 301, MOTION DATE 7/17/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 007
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN a/k/a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK; DICOESE OF BURLINGTON a/k/a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DICOESE OF BURLINGTON, VERMONT; BROTHERS OF THE SACRED HEART a/k/a BROTHERS OF THE SACRED HEART PROVINCE OF NEW YORK a/k/a THE PROVINCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE BROTHERS OF THE DECISION + ORDER ON SACRED HEART, INC. a/k/a BROTHERS OF THE MOTION SACRED HEART OF NEW JERSEY/NEW YORK, INC; MONSIGNOR MCCLANCY a/k/a MONSIGNOR MCCLANCY MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL; and DOES 1-5 whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff
Defendants.
-------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 130-146 were read on this motion to/for Motion to Dismiss
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a summons and complaint on July 21,
2020, which alleges that from approximately 1981 to 1984, when Plaintiff was approximately 14
to 17 years old, Plaintiff attended Monsignor McClancy Memorial High School, within the
Diocese of Brooklyn, where he was sexually assaulted by Father Leo J. Courcy, Jr ("Courcy").
As this action relates to the Diocese of Burlington, Plaintiff alleges that Courcy was
ordained as a Priest by the Diocese of Burlington in May 1962 and served as a Priest in parishes
of the Diocese of Burlington from approximately 1962 to February 1965. Thereafter the Diocese
512965/2020 ARK301 DOE V THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL MOTION NO.007 Page 1 of 4
[* 1] 1 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/27/2024 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 512965/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/27/2024
of Burlington received credible allegations of child sexual abuse by Courcy, who was placed on a
leave of absence for a year before returning to active duty from approximately February 1966 to
December, 1966.
Thereafter, Courcy was sent to Jemez Springs, New Mexico, where a Catholic Order
known as the Servants of the Paraclete operated a treatment center for pedophile priests. Courcy
remained in New Mexico until June 1970, before serving as a priest in Amarillo, Texas and
thereafter returning to active assignments in parishes in the Diocese of Burlington, in or about
January 1971.
Plaintiff alleges that by the time of Courcy's return to service in the Diocese of Burlington,
that said Diocese "knew with substantial certainty that Father Courcy would engage in child sexual
abuse in his assignments as a Priest." Courcy was transferred to the Archdiocese of New York in
or about the late 1970s, remaining under the supervision and control of the Archdiocese of
Burlington. Courcy continued to function as a priest until the Diocese removed his faculties while
he was assigned to St. Augustine Parish in New York City in 1993.
In 2009, the Diocese of Burlington, and then-bishop of the Diocese of Burlington,
Salvatore Matano, laicized, or removed Courcy from the priesthood.
DISCUSSION
The issue of whether the Court can exercise long arm jurisdiction over the Burlington
Diocese for alleged abuse by Father Courcy, one of its ordained priests has been the subject of
much motion practice in this and related actions.
Pursuant to a decision and order dated March 9, 2023, the Court (Love, J) dismissed this
action as against the Diocese of Burlington finding that there was no jurisdiction over the out of
state entity.
512965/2020 ARK301 DOE V THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL MOTION NO.007 Page 2 of 4
[* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/27/2024 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 512965/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/27/2024
Pursuant to a decision and order issued by this Court on October 5, 2023, this Court granted
plaintiffs motion for reargument, vacated the dismissal order and allowed for jurisdictional
discovery.
Jurisdictional discovery has now been completed and the Diocese of Burlington has
renewed its motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. The motion is denied.
In a recent case, directly on point, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed
Justice Love's dismissal against the Diocese of Burlington, finding there was jurisdiction. The
Court held in pertinent part:
Plaintiff brings this action under CPLR 214-g, the Child Victims Act. He alleges that a Catholic priest (the Priest) sexually assaulted him in the mid-1980s, when he was between 11 and 12 years old and a parishioner at defendant St. Francis de Chantal Roman Catholic Church. According to the allegations in the complaint, while the Priest was assigned to a parish in New York, he was employed by defendant Diocese of Burlington, which had actual knowledge of his history of sexually abusing children.
Accepting as true the facts alleged (see Rushaid v Pictet & Cie, 28 NY3d 316, 327 [2016]), plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that Diocese of Burlington is subject to personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(l) (see PC-16 Doe v Hill Regional Career High School, 223 AD3d 518,519 [1st Dept 2024]). Plaintiff alleges that Diocese of Burlington exercised , supervision and control over the Priest, placing him on an indefinite, long-term assignment in New York to provide Catholic clergy services to parishioners in New York, including plaintiff even though it knew that he was a sexual predator. Plaintiff also alleges that during this period and in connection with those priestly duties, the Priest sexually assaulted plaintiff on multiple occasions. Therefore, plaintiff adequately alleges that Diocese of Burlington engaged in "purposeful activity" in New York, and that there is a "substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" (id). While Diocese of Burlington denies that it has ever transacted business in New York, it did not submit any evidence to refute plaintiffs allegations concerning its employment relationship with the Priest and its ability to supervise and control him throughout the relevant period.
Further, "the exercise oflong-armjurisdiction over defendants per CPLR 302(a)(l) comports with due process, as it must" (id. at 520). For the reasons stated, "plaintiff adequately alleged Diocese of Burlington's 'minimum contacts' with New York, in the form of their purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities here, thus invoking the protections and benefits of New York's laws" (id.). Diocese of Burlington "failed to present a compelling case that some other consideration would render jurisdiction unreasonable" (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).
512965/2020 ARK301 DOE V THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL MOTION NO.007 Page 3 of 4
[* 3] 3 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/27/2024 11:39 AM INDEX NO. 512965/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/27/2024
We have considered Diocese of Burlington's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 33419(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ark-301-v-diocese-of-brooklyn-nysupctkings-2024.