M.O. v. Archdiocese of N.Y.

2024 NY Slip Op 03541

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: June 27, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 950108/20 Appeal No. 2574 Case No. 2023-04277
• Status: Published

Opinion

M.O. v Archdiocese of N.Y. (2024 NY Slip Op 03541)

M.O. v Archdiocese of N.Y.

2024 NY Slip Op 03541

Decided on June 27, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: June 27, 2024
Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Shulman, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 950108/20 Appeal No. 2574 Case No. 2023-04277

[*1]M.O., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

The Archdiocese of New York, et al., Defendants, Lincoln Hall Also Known as Lincoln Hall Haven For Boys, Defendant-Appellant.

Coffey Modica LLP, White Plains (Jeffrey W. Gasbarro of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered on or about July 26, 2023, which denied defendant Lincoln Hall a/k/a Lincoln Hall Boys Haven's motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied the motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims of negligence arising from the allegation that he was sexually abused in or around 1985 or 1986 by a priest during his stay at Lincoln Hall, a residential school and facility for boys. Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln Hall knew or should have known of the priest's dangerous propensities. While Lincoln Hall argues that plaintiff fails to allege specific facts that it had notice of the priest's criminal proclivities or identify the priest by name, at this pre-answer stage of the litigation, such information is in the sole possession and control of Lincoln Hall (see G.T. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 211 AD3d 413, 413 [1st Dept 2022]). Therefore, dismissal of the negligence claims asserted against it was properly denied on this ground, as "facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated" (CPLR 3211[d]; see G.T. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y., 211 AD3d at 413; ARK265 Doe v Archdiocese of N.Y., 221 AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept 2023]).

We have considered Lincoln Hall's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 27, 2024