ARK406 Doe v. Jesuit Fathers & Bros.

2024 NY Slip Op 30357(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: January 30, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ARK406 Doe v Jesuit Fathers & Bros. 2024 NY Slip Op 30357(U) January 30, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 950370/2021 Judge: Sabrina 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. INDEX NO. 950370/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 950370/2021 ARK406 DOE, MOTION DATE 09/11/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 - V -

JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS, JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS NK/A SOCIETY OF JESUS D/B/A U.S.A. MIDWEST PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS F/K/A DECISION + ORDER ON CHICAGO PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS, DOES 1-5 WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO MOTION PLAINTIFF

Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56,57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleged being sexually abused as a child by Jesuit priest, Father Maurice Meyers,

S.J. ("Meyers") while on camping trips at Ten Mile River Camp in Narrowsburg, New York and

Alpine Scout Camp in Alpine, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant time Plaintiff was

a New York State Resident.

Defendants The New York Province of the Society of Jesus and The USA Northeast

Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc. i/ s/h/a Jesuit Fathers and Brothers d/b/ a The New York

Province of the Society of Jesus a/k/a U.S.A. Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus move to

dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) and (a)(5).

The motion is denied for the reasons set forth below.

950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS Page 1 of4 Motion No. 003

[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 950370/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

DISCUSSION

New York's pleading standard is fundamentally notice pleading-a very liberal standard.

CPLR 3013 provides:

Statements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.

"The allegations of a complaint generally need not be set forth in detail; it is sufficient if

the parties are (1) put on notice of the underlying transactions or occurrences, and (2) the

material elements of the cause of action are stated." Mid-Hudson Valley Fed. Credit Union v.

Quartararo & Lois, PLLC, 64 N.Y.S.3d 389, 393 (3d Dep't 2017), a.ffd, 31 N.Y.3d 1090 (2018).

Furthermore, "[a] complaint need not, and should not, anticipate and refute defenses." Sabater ex

rel. Santana v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 704 N.Y.S.2d 800, 804 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2000).

Plaintiffs Complaint meets both requirements.

On both a CPLR §321 l(a)(5) motion to dismiss on the ground that a cause of action is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations and a CPLR §321 l(a)(7) motion to dismiss for

failure to state a cause of action, a court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the

facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible

favorable inference. JP. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 21 N.Y.3d 324, 334 (2013); US.

Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Gordon, 72 N.Y.S.3d 156, 159 (2d Dep't 2018); Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates

Dev. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 409,414 (2001).

"The sole criterion is whether from the complaint's four corners factual allegations are

discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law." Operative Cake

Corp. v. Nassour, 910 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dept., 2005); Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser,

Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231,234 (2d Dept., 2006).

950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 003

[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 950370/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

Defendant seeks to dismiss "that portion of plaintiff's second amended complaint which

alleges claims of sexual misconduct in New Jersey as time barred given that the claims were

asserted beyond New York's revival window under CPLR 214-g." However, no new claims or

causes of action were asserted in the Second Amended Complaint. The allegations relating to the

sexual abuse by Meyers in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are identical to those alleged

in Plaintiff's Complaint filed June 18, 2021. Namely that from approximately 1956 to 1957,

when Plaintiff was approximately 11 to 12 years old, Meyers engaged in unpermitted sexual

contact with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff asserted his causes of action and made allegations relating to the sexual abuse

that occurred in New Jersey in the original Complaint, but just did not specify in the prior

complaint the location where the alleged abuse occurred.

Defendant argues that some of Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because Plaintiff does

not allege that he was a resident of New York at the time of abuse. This argument is defeated by

the Second Amended Complaint itself wherein Plaintiff explicitly alleges that at all times

material, Plaintiff resided in the State of New York. All material times includes the time of the

alleged abuse.

As acknowledged by movants, actions revived under the CVA include claims where the

abuse took place outside the state as long as plaintiff was a New York State Resident when the

abuse occurred. Walloch v. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism 219 AD3d 42l(lst

Dept, 2023); Shapiro v. Syracuse University 208 Ad3d 958 (4th Dept, 2022). A claim that

accrues in favor of a New York resident will be governed by the New York statute of limitations

regardless of where the claim accrued. Doe v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 2023 NY Slip Op.

950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 003

[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 950370/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

31014(U)(CVA revival window applied to a New York plaintiff's claims, where sexual abuse

occurred in Canada).

Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied.

WHEREFORE it is hereby:

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied; and it is

further

ORDERED that movants shall serve and file an answer within 30 days of the date of this

order; and it is further

ORDERED that counsel appear for a virtual compliance conference on March 20, 2024 at

3:00 PM; and it is further

ORDERED that, within 20 days from entry of this order, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this

order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119);

and it is further

ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and

is hereby denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

1/30/2024 DATE SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C.

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS Page4 of 4 Motion No. 003

[* 4] 4 of 4