ARK644 Doe v Archdiocese of N.Y. 2024 NY Slip Op 30921(U) March 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 951179/2021 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. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 951179/2021 ARK644 DOE, MOTION DATE 11/27/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 - V -
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, ST. FRANCES DE CHANTAL, DOES 1-5 DECISION + ORDER ON WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, MOTION
Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 were read on this motion to/for RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE/RECONSIDER .
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to The Child Victim's Act seeking damages for
alleged sexual abuse he suffered when he was between the ages of 6 and 9 years old, at the hands
of Father Leo J. Courcy ("Courcy"), a Roman Catholic cleric alleged to have been employed by
the Archdiocese, Diocese of Brooklyn, Diocese of Burlington, and St. Frances De Chantal.
ALLEGED FACTS
Plaintiff alleges the following facts in the motion papers, some of which are contested by
the Burlington Diocese.
Courcy was a priest employed by Burlington Diocese from ordination when he became a
priest until his removal from the priesthood in 2009. Even before Courcy's ordination,
Burlington Diocese was aware that Courcy was not suited to work with children. The Burlington
Diocese ordained Courcy in New York in 1962.
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 1] 1 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Courcy began ministering in Vermont on May 19, 1962. Just 3 days later, a report was
written indicating that Courcy had difficulty collaborating with those of his own age and was
hyper focused on working with youth.
By January 1965, Burlington Diocese sent Courcy for treatment at the Institute of Living,
one of the primary treatment centers in the U.S. for Catholic priests who sexually abused
children. Defendant paid for this hospitalization.
In 1966, several doctors at the Institute informed the Bishop that Courcy was not
equipped for teaching and counseling students, and that teaching or parish work was not best for
Courcy.
In September 1965, Courcy was admitted to the Fanny Allen Hospital for several months.
Courcy was then admitted to the Psychiatric Department of DeGosebriand Hospital.
Defendant allowed Courcy to continue to present himself as a priest, celebrate Mass, and
work with parishioners during this time, despite its own concerns, and the concerns of the
doctors treating Courcy.
In 1966, for unspecified reasons, Courcy was terminated from a parish assignment and
sent to Via Coeli/Servants of the Paraclete-another well-known treatment facility for priests
who had sexually abused children.
Courcy was told he must remain at this treatment facility indefinitely until the Bishop
personally authorized Courcy to leave.
The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese informed one of the priests at Servants of the
Paraclete that Courcy should be removed completely from all communication, especially with
young people.
One of Courcy' s doctors acknowledged that Courcy had psychosexual disturbances.
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 2] 2 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
In 1967, the Bishop of Burlington Diocese acknowledged that Courcy should not be
counseling students but would consider leave to work outside the diocese. One of the priests at
the treatment center warned Burlington Diocese that he is not convinced that Courcy could return
to full ministry.
Nevertheless, during this time, Courcy ministered in Santa Fe and El Paso.
The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese was informed that the Archbishop of Santa Fe
advised Courcy to return to Servants of the Paraclete because his work was unsatisfactory.
In 1969, Courcy was again admitted to the Servants of the Paraclete. The Bishop of
Burlington Diocese wrote a letter to Courcy reprimanding him and acknowledging Courcy' s
psychosocial or psychiatric problems.
In 1970, the Bishop of Defendant wrote a letter to one of the priests working at the
Servants of the Paraclete to see if he knew of any other dioceses wanting to take Servants of the
Paraclete guests, like Courcy, during their recovery period.
In 1971, Defendant sent Courcy to the Archdiocese of Ottawa and informed Burlington
Diocese parishioners that Courcy had always had serious problems, both in the Burlington
Diocese and in other dioceses.
In 1974, Defendant sent Courcy to Fordham University in New York to get his degree in
Religious Education.
In 1975, Courcy wrote a letter to the Bishop of Burlington Diocese seeking to be assigned
in Burlington Diocese. The Bishop responded that it was preferable for Courcy to not take up
duties in Burlington Diocese again because Courcy' s problems were disturbing.
In 1979, the Bishop of Burlington Diocese gave the Vice Chancellor of the Diocese of
Brooklyn his permission for Courcy to work in New York and informed him that "Priests on the
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 3] 3 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Personnel Board of the Diocese of Burlington consistently advised me to allow Father Courcy to
serve outside the diocese because he can be a source of disturbance within. Every place that he
has been - and there have been several - the history is the same." The Bishop acknowledged that
Courcy had proven to be a very disruptive influence in a smaller diocese, where the number of
people is small and stories are rapidly passed from one to another.
The Bishop also informed the Diocese of Brooklyn that it would be wise to have
someone check in on Courcy periodically every now and then to take prompt action when
difficulties arose, advising that Courcy' s past record would support prompt action
In the early 1980s, Courcy asked to come back to Burlington Diocese, but the Bishop
denied these requests and explicitly told Courcy that it was best for him to stay in the Diocese of
Brooklyn, away from Vermont, based upon the recommendation of the Diocesan Personnel
Board.
The alleged abuse in this case occurred between 1981 and 1984.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 29, 2021, Burlington Diocese brought a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, which the court (Love, J) denied.
On March 13, 2023, Defendant moved to renew its Motion to Dismiss based upon a
Southern District of New York case applying the 12(b)(2) federal motion to dismiss standard,
Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 579 F. Supp.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ARK644 Doe v Archdiocese of N.Y. 2024 NY Slip Op 30921(U) March 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 951179/2021 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. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 951179/2021 ARK644 DOE, MOTION DATE 11/27/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 - V -
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, ST. FRANCES DE CHANTAL, DOES 1-5 DECISION + ORDER ON WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, MOTION
Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 were read on this motion to/for RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE/RECONSIDER .
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to The Child Victim's Act seeking damages for
alleged sexual abuse he suffered when he was between the ages of 6 and 9 years old, at the hands
of Father Leo J. Courcy ("Courcy"), a Roman Catholic cleric alleged to have been employed by
the Archdiocese, Diocese of Brooklyn, Diocese of Burlington, and St. Frances De Chantal.
ALLEGED FACTS
Plaintiff alleges the following facts in the motion papers, some of which are contested by
the Burlington Diocese.
Courcy was a priest employed by Burlington Diocese from ordination when he became a
priest until his removal from the priesthood in 2009. Even before Courcy's ordination,
Burlington Diocese was aware that Courcy was not suited to work with children. The Burlington
Diocese ordained Courcy in New York in 1962.
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 1 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 1] 1 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Courcy began ministering in Vermont on May 19, 1962. Just 3 days later, a report was
written indicating that Courcy had difficulty collaborating with those of his own age and was
hyper focused on working with youth.
By January 1965, Burlington Diocese sent Courcy for treatment at the Institute of Living,
one of the primary treatment centers in the U.S. for Catholic priests who sexually abused
children. Defendant paid for this hospitalization.
In 1966, several doctors at the Institute informed the Bishop that Courcy was not
equipped for teaching and counseling students, and that teaching or parish work was not best for
Courcy.
In September 1965, Courcy was admitted to the Fanny Allen Hospital for several months.
Courcy was then admitted to the Psychiatric Department of DeGosebriand Hospital.
Defendant allowed Courcy to continue to present himself as a priest, celebrate Mass, and
work with parishioners during this time, despite its own concerns, and the concerns of the
doctors treating Courcy.
In 1966, for unspecified reasons, Courcy was terminated from a parish assignment and
sent to Via Coeli/Servants of the Paraclete-another well-known treatment facility for priests
who had sexually abused children.
Courcy was told he must remain at this treatment facility indefinitely until the Bishop
personally authorized Courcy to leave.
The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese informed one of the priests at Servants of the
Paraclete that Courcy should be removed completely from all communication, especially with
young people.
One of Courcy' s doctors acknowledged that Courcy had psychosexual disturbances.
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 2 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 2] 2 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
In 1967, the Bishop of Burlington Diocese acknowledged that Courcy should not be
counseling students but would consider leave to work outside the diocese. One of the priests at
the treatment center warned Burlington Diocese that he is not convinced that Courcy could return
to full ministry.
Nevertheless, during this time, Courcy ministered in Santa Fe and El Paso.
The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese was informed that the Archbishop of Santa Fe
advised Courcy to return to Servants of the Paraclete because his work was unsatisfactory.
In 1969, Courcy was again admitted to the Servants of the Paraclete. The Bishop of
Burlington Diocese wrote a letter to Courcy reprimanding him and acknowledging Courcy' s
psychosocial or psychiatric problems.
In 1970, the Bishop of Defendant wrote a letter to one of the priests working at the
Servants of the Paraclete to see if he knew of any other dioceses wanting to take Servants of the
Paraclete guests, like Courcy, during their recovery period.
In 1971, Defendant sent Courcy to the Archdiocese of Ottawa and informed Burlington
Diocese parishioners that Courcy had always had serious problems, both in the Burlington
Diocese and in other dioceses.
In 1974, Defendant sent Courcy to Fordham University in New York to get his degree in
Religious Education.
In 1975, Courcy wrote a letter to the Bishop of Burlington Diocese seeking to be assigned
in Burlington Diocese. The Bishop responded that it was preferable for Courcy to not take up
duties in Burlington Diocese again because Courcy' s problems were disturbing.
In 1979, the Bishop of Burlington Diocese gave the Vice Chancellor of the Diocese of
Brooklyn his permission for Courcy to work in New York and informed him that "Priests on the
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 3 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 3] 3 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Personnel Board of the Diocese of Burlington consistently advised me to allow Father Courcy to
serve outside the diocese because he can be a source of disturbance within. Every place that he
has been - and there have been several - the history is the same." The Bishop acknowledged that
Courcy had proven to be a very disruptive influence in a smaller diocese, where the number of
people is small and stories are rapidly passed from one to another.
The Bishop also informed the Diocese of Brooklyn that it would be wise to have
someone check in on Courcy periodically every now and then to take prompt action when
difficulties arose, advising that Courcy' s past record would support prompt action
In the early 1980s, Courcy asked to come back to Burlington Diocese, but the Bishop
denied these requests and explicitly told Courcy that it was best for him to stay in the Diocese of
Brooklyn, away from Vermont, based upon the recommendation of the Diocesan Personnel
Board.
The alleged abuse in this case occurred between 1981 and 1984.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 29, 2021, Burlington Diocese brought a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, which the court (Love, J) denied.
On March 13, 2023, Defendant moved to renew its Motion to Dismiss based upon a
Southern District of New York case applying the 12(b)(2) federal motion to dismiss standard,
Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 579 F. Supp. 3d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). The
court (Love, J) granted the motion to renew and dismissed the Burlington Diocese from this case
on July 31, 2023.
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 29, 2023.
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 4 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 4] 4 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
THE PENDING MOTION
On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff moved for an order pursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to
renew and vacate the July 31, 2023 order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs motion is primarily based on this Court's October 5, 2023 decision in ARK301
Doe v. Diocese ofBrooklyn et. al., Index No. 512965/2020
In that case, this Court granted a motion to reargue Judge Love's dismissal of the action
against Burlington Diocese and granted plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery. That
action concerns the same defendant, Burlington Diocese, and arises out of conduct by the same
perpetrator, Courcy.
In granting the motion for reargument in that case, this Court held Justice Love had erred
in finding that Edwardo was binding precedent, that Eduardo was factually distinguishable from
the case at bar, and that the underlying decision failed to address the request for jurisdictional
discovery.
In both actions Justice Love was clear he did not agree with the holding in Eduardo:
While this Court disagrees with the (Eduardo) holding and would frankly prefer a different outcome as, accepting all of plaintiffs allegations as true, the Diocese of Burlington knew of Courcy' s dangerous propensities and, in its control of Courcy, transferred him to New York, where he did allegedly abuse plaintiff, then the Diocese of Burlington should reasonably expect to be called into court in New York. Justice calls out for the Diocese of Burlington to be subject to discovery and address this matter on the merits rather then short circuiting the process.
However, there is no motion pending before this Court for reargument, as there was in
the related action, rather here Plaintiff seeks renewal, arguing that this Court's decision in the
related action constitutes a clarification in decisional law that supports renewal pursuant to
CPLR §2221(e).
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 5 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 5] 5 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
This Court does not find said decision to be a basis for renewal nor can this Court's prior
decision in the related action reasonably be considered to be a clarification of decisional law.
CPLR §2221 is an inappropriate vehicle to vacate a judgment. Maddux v. Schur, 53
A.D.3d 738, 739 (2008). CPLR §2221(e) is not directed at final orders or judgments.
While, CPLR §5015(a)(2) applies to final orders and final judgments in actions,
Plaintiffs application can not properly be considered pursuant to CPLR §5015.
CPLR §2221(e)(2) permits renewal motions where there has been a change in the law
while the action is still pending that would alter the court's prior motion determination. CPLR
§5015(a)(2), by contrast, has no corresponding provision for changes in the law, as it speaks only
to new factual evidence. The reason CPLR 5015(a)(2) is restricted to new evidence, without
extending to changes in the law, is that if an order or judgment is final, a change in the law
thereafter is of no value to an aggrieved party. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5015 (McKinney).
Based on the foregoing, the court is constrained to deny the motion.
WHEREFORE it is hereby:
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for renewal and to vacate the July 31, 2023 is denied
in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for the remaining parties appear for a virtual compliance
conference on April 15, 2024, at 11:30 am; 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 such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 6 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 6] 6 of 7 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the
addresswww.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);].
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
3/19/2024 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
951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL Page 7 of 7 Motion No. 005
[* 7] 7 of 7