M.B. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33876(U) (M.B. v. Roman Catholic 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
M.B. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn 2024 NY Slip Op 33876(U) October 29, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 526856/2019 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. [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2024 04:13 P~ INDEX NO. 526856/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK KINGS COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SABRINA B. KRAUS PART CVA 1/ 57 Justice --------------------------X INDEX NO. 526856/2019
M.B, MOTION DATE 10/25/2024
Plaintiff, 003 MOTION SEQ. NO. 004
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, DECISION + ORDER ON Defendant. MOTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 62 - 82; 100- 109; 120 were read on this motion to/for VACATE
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 87 - 99; 110 - 119; 121 were read on this motion to/for STRIKE
BACKGROUND
This is action was brought pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act, CPLR § 214-g.
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the complaint.
Plaintiff, when he was a minor, was sexually assaulted by Father Romano Ferraro
("Ferraro"), a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn ("Diocese") and serial pedophile. The Diocese
was made aware of Ferraro's pedophilia in approximately 1955, when Ferraro was still in the
seminary. Despite its alleged knowledge of Ferraro's conduct, Ferraro was allowed to complete
his training and was sent on various assignments throughout Brooklyn and Long Island, New
York and the United States. Ferraro continued to sexually assault and abuse children until his
526856-19 MB v ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN Motion Seq 003 & 004 Page 1 of 4
[* 1] 1 of 4 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2024 04:13 P~ INDEX NO. 526856/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2024
removal from the Church in 2002. The Diocese and the Church were made aware of Ferraro's
assaults and acts several times throughout the course of tenure in the Church. Ferraro is currently
serving a lifetime prison sentence in Massachusetts for the rape of a seven (7) year old child.
Plaintiff was raised in a devout Catholic family. Ferraro served as the family Priest. In or
around 1987 to 1995, when the Plaintiff was approximately five (5) to twelve (12) years old,
Plaintiff would often spend weekends at his grandparent's house, particularly in the summer and
for holidays. Ferraro would typically be there. Ferraro also attended numerous family functions,
including holidays and birthdays at the houses of Plaintiffs family members, including his
grandparents and his aunt. Ferraro appeared in priest garb and served in his pastoral and
ministerial role as priest. At night, Ferraro would sleep with Plaintiff on the couch downstairs
while his grandparents slept upstairs. On these occasions, Ferraro would isolate Plaintiff, either
alone or with one of his brothers. Ferraro sexually assaulted or abused Plaintiff on these
occasions. The acts of sexual assault and abuse committed by Father Ferraro included, but were
not limited to, inappropriately touching Plaintiff and fondling Plaintiffs genitalia.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 12, 2021, the Diocese provided plaintiff with a heavily redacted copy of
Ferraro's personnel file, with a log pertaining to the redactions.
On December 18, 2023, at a compliance conference held in this and related matters,
Plaintiff requested leave of the court to compel production of the unredacted file of Ferraro. At
the direction of this Court, Plaintiff and Defendant filed letter briefs regarding the redactions that
were made to Father Romano Ferraro's personnel file.
On July 31, 2024, after an in camera review, this Court held that the Diocese must
produce hundreds of previously redacted pages in unredacted form.
526856-19 MB v ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN Motion Seq 003 & 004 Page 2 of 4
2 of 4 [* 2] [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2024 04:13 P~ INDEX NO. 526856/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2024
To date Defendant has failed to comply with the order.
PENDING MOTIONS
On October 22, 2024, Defendant move pursuant to CPLR §2221(a) for an order vacating
the Court's order directing the production of the specified unredacted pages and for related relief.
Defendant asserts it makes this motion primarily for the purpose of creating an appealable order.
On October 25, 204, Plaintiff cross-moved for an order striking Defendant's answer
pursuant to CPLR 3126 and for related relief.
As the Court has already considered the issues raised herein in the previous order issued
the motion to vacate is denied, and Plaintiffs cross-motion to strike pursuant to CPLR 3126 is
conditionally granted as set forth below.
DISCUSSION
The Court agrees that Defendant has engaged in a persistent campaign to delay discovery
in this and related actions.
The Court finds no legal or factual basis to issue a protective order, if the Court believed
such basis to exist it would not have ordered the redacted pages produced over Defendant's
objections. The memorandum of law in support of this motion simply contains the arguments
previously made by Defendant and rejected for the reasons set forth by the Court in its prior order.
Nor does the Court find there is any basis to further delay Defendant's compliance with this order,
as noted Plaintiff has been seeking this file since 2021.
Turning to the cross-motion, the Court finds it is appropriate to conditionally grant the
relief sought by Plaintiff. CPLR § 3126 vests this Court with broad discretion regarding the nature
and severity of sanctions to impose upon a party that "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or
wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" or
526856-19 MB v ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN Motion Seq 003 & 004 Page 3 of 4
[* 3] 3 of 4 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/29/2024 04:13 P~ INDEX NO. 526856/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/29/2024
"frustrates the disclosure scheme." Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 (1999); Zletz v. Wetanson,
67 NY2d 711, 713 (1986); see Ortega v. City of New York, 9 NY3d at 69, 76, 79 (2007); Berman
v. Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612 (1st Dept 1992); Brandi v. Chan, 151 AD2d 853, 854 (3d Dept
1989), lv dismissed 75 NY2d 789 (1990).
The Court finds Defendant's failure to comply with discovery orders and demands to be
dilatory, obstructive and contumacious. See Kutner v Feiden, Dweck & Sladkus, 223 AD2d 488
(1 st Dept 1998). However, under the circumstances of this case, a conditional order of dismissal,
giving Defendant a final chance to comply with the previous court orders to produce the file, is
more appropriate than outright dismissal.
Therefore, the branch of Plaintiffs cross-motion which seeks to strike the answer is
granted to the extent that Defendant's answer will be stricken pursuant to CPLR 3126 unless the
redacted pages are produced to Plaintiff on or before November 18, 2024.
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 33876(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mb-v-roman-catholic-diocese-of-brooklyn-nysupctkings-2024.