Title: Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 33  
Jane Doe et al., 
            Respondents, 
        v. 
Roman Catholic Diocese of 
Rochester, et al., 
            Appellants.
Philip G. Spellane, for appellants Clark and Roman
Catholic Diocese of Rochester.
Christopher Ciaccio, for appellant Peter M. DeBellis.
Christina A. Agola, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as
appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, defendants'
motions to dismiss the complaint in the entirety should be
granted and the certified question should be answered in the
- 2 -
No. 33
- 2 -
negative.
Plaintiffs were congregants of Our Mother of Sorrows
Church, where defendant Father Peter DeBellis was a priest. 
Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that in November 2000, she began
counseling with Father DeBellis.  Soon thereafter, plaintiff
maintains that they began a sexual relationship that lasted for
more than three years.  Both the counseling and the sexual
relationship continued despite repeated complaints to the Diocese
by plaintiff husband, John Doe, and DeBellis's subsequent
transfer to another church.  Plaintiffs commenced this action
asserting, as relevant here, a breach of fiduciary duty claim
against Father DeBellis, and claims for negligent supervision and
retention against the Diocese.
As we recently reaffirmed, a fiduciary relationship
must exhibit the characteristics of "de facto control and
dominance" (Marmelstein v Kehillat New Hempstead: Rav Aron Jofen
Community Synagogue, 11 NY3d 15, 21 [2008] [internal quotation
marks and citation omitted]).  Specifically, we held that in
order to demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary duty between a
cleric and a congregant involved in a formal counseling
relationship, "a congregant must set forth facts and
circumstances in the complaint demonstrating that the congregant
became uniquely vulnerable and incapable of self-protection
regarding the matter at issue" (Marmelstein, 11 NY3d at 22).
The complaint in this case, although drafted prior to
- 3 -
No. 33
- 3 -
our decision in Marmelstein, falls short of what is necessary to
state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  The bare allegation
that Jane Doe was "a vulnerable congregant" is insufficient to
establish that plaintiff was particularly susceptible to Father
DeBellis's influence.  Nor does the complaint provide any other
allegations to show that the parties had a relationship
characterized by control and dominance.
Plaintiffs' claims for negligent supervision and
retention against the Diocese likewise fail.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs,
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint in the entirety
granted and certified question answered in the negative, in a 
memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo,
Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided March 26, 2009