MM-1-DOE v Catholic Diocese of Peoria

2024 NY Slip Op 33288(U)

September 17, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 950246/2019

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.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

PRESENT: 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 

Justice 

57M 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

MM-1-DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

- V -

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA, ST. JOHN THE 

BAPTIST CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CLINTON, ILLINOIS, 

Defendants. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

MOTION DATE 05/28/2024 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,100,101 

were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for sexual abuse he alleges was 

perpetrated on him by a Priest who was ordained by and the agent and or employee of 

defendants. Discovery is complete, and Plaintiff filed his note of issue on June 28, 2024. 

Defendants now move for summary judgment based on their defense that the court lacks 

long arm jurisdiction over them, or alternatively based on Plaintiff's failure to include his claim 

against Defendants in a 2010 bankruptcy filing. 

The caption of the action is amended to reflect that the action was discontinued against 

the Archdiocese of New York. 

For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. 

ALLEGED FACTS 

The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff's statement of facts. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

1 of 12 

Page 1 of 12 

[* 1]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

From age 6 to 16, Plaintiff was groomed and sexually abused by Father Robert Creager 

("Creager"). Creager was employed by the Catholic Diocese of Peoria ("CDOP") and was 

assigned as the pastor of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church of Clinton, Illinois ("St. John"). 

St. John was a parish church and was part of CDOP and under the direction and authority of the 

Bishop of the CDOP. 

Plaintiff was molested in Illinois, which was known to defendants, and was subject to 

sexual abuse by Creager while in New York City in September of 1980. At that time, Plaintiff 

and Creager were in New York City as part of a pilgrimage to New York, and later to Rome and 

Holy Land sponsored, hosted, and directed by defendants. The pilgrimage included prayer, mass, 

the sacraments and religious discussion in NY, Rome, and the Holy Land. Creager, with the 

assistance and approval of CDOP and St. John, planned and lead the pilgrims. 

In New York, Creager led Plaintiff to historic religious sites, 19th century churches for 

immigrants arriving in America and to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. They prayed 

and participated in mass at the churches. Creager also lead prayers and said mass and 

administered the sacraments in the hotel room he shared with Plaintiff. 

Creager also heard the confession of Plaintiff in the hotel room in NY during the 

pilgrimage. The Hotel Room is where Plaintiff was abused. 

Creager was the pastor at St. John for years before the pilgrimage. Creager solicited the 

Plaintiff and others to become religious pilgrims both privately and from the pulpit. Creager 

asked parishioners and others attending mass at St. John to join the pilgrimage to New York, 

Rome, and the Holy Land during his homilies at St. John in the months before the pilgrimage. 

Plaintiff served Creager' s masses at St. John as an altar server and witnessed the above 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

2 of 12 

Page 2 of 12 

[* 2]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

solicitations. Three ladies, Ms. Rapier, Ms. Irwin and Ms., Leeker, joined them. The ladies were 

directed by Creager to chaperone and supervise Plaintiff during the pilgrimage. 

Defendants advertised, organized, planned, and arranged the pilgrimage. Defendants 

decided where Plaintiff went to mass, prayer, received the sacraments, and what activities were 

pursued during the pilgrimage Plaintiff shared a room with Creager. 

Plaintiff disputes Defendants' claim that the pilgrimage was really controlled by a travel 

agency. Plaintiff alleges that although the travel agency offered an itinerary in Rome and the 

Holy Land, its involvement with the supervision, education, and leadership of the CDOP 

pilgrims was nonexistent. Moreover, the CDOP pilgrims did not follow the itinerary provided by 

the travel agency, but instead were directed by Creager as to pilgrimage activities. 

In preparation for the pilgrimage to NY, Rome, and the Holy Land, the CDOP required 

the appointment of Creager as a short-term guardian of the minor Plaintiff during the pilgrimage. 

CDOP provided the short-term guardianship documents to Plaintiff's parents to sign. The 

guardianship documents appointed Creager as Plaintiff's guardian during the pilgrimage. 

Pursuant to the Statutes for Synod Six in effect at the time, Priests were not permitted to 

accept guardianship of a child without permission of the bishop. The guardianship documents 

arrived at Plaintiff's home in a CDOP envelope with a letter from the CDOP to Plaintiff's 

parents. Upon receipt, Plaintiff's father called the offices of CDOP and talked to officials there. 

Plaintiff's father was advised by CDOP officials that the guardianship appointment of Creager 

was a requirement the plaintiff due to his young age and for medical purposes during the 

pilgrimage. As a result, Plaintiff's parents signed the guardianship documents and mailed them 

to CDOP. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

3 of 12 

Page 3 of 12 

[* 3]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

Defendants knew and should have known through their employees of prior instances of 

sexual abuse and sleeping with minors by Creager. 

In 1956, minors were sexually abused by Creager at Sacred Heart School in Moline, 

Illinois. There were at least three alleged sexual abuse victims in Moline prior to 1960 according 

to CDOP documents. In 1956, there was an additional instance of sexual abuse by Creager in 

DeWitt county, Illinois, a county separate from the city of Moline. 

In 1960, Creager responded to the missing letter of Bishop Franz that he would per the 

Bishop's suggestion, join the military. Bishop Franz recommended Creager to the Military 

Ordinariate, which was in New York at the time. The Military Ordinariate is also known as the 

Archdiocese of the Military with diocesan authority over all Catholic priests in the U.S. military. 

The recommendation of Bishop Franz was acknowledged by clergy in New York where the 

Military Ordinariate was headquartered at the time. CDOP Bishop Franz recommended Creager 

by letter to the Military Ordinariate in New York on 5/12/60. The CDOP failed to reveal any 

abuse allegations against Creager to the Military Ordinariate at the time of his recommendation 

to the military and to the Military Ordinariate. 

However, on 5/17 /60, the Military Ordinariate wrote to the CDOP expressing 

"misgivings" about Creager's planned release/discharge by CDOP without an assignment from 

the Military Ordinariate. This suspicion of Creager by the Military Ordinariate due to his 

discharge by the CDOP was communicated to CDOP in a letter to Bishop Franz. Despite being 

made aware of the Military Ordinariates concerns regarding Creager being unassigned, on 

5/31/60, CDOP Bishop Franz discharged Creager. 

Creager was assigned by the Navy as an officer and a chaplain in January of 1961, after 

months of being unassigned to a position. Within a few months, Creager was forced to resign by 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

4 of 12 

Page 4 of 12 

[* 4]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

the Navy due to sexual improprieties with young men. Creager initially sent a letter to Bishop 

Franz on July 14, 1961, stating that he could not accept an overseas tour without "jeopardizing 

[his] priesthood and possibly [his] salvation" and that he would be informing the Military 

Ordinariate of his intention to return to CDOP. He explained that he feared war and worried he 

would become a recluse and be unable to carry out his priestly duties as a result. 

On July 30, 1961, the Military Ordinariate in New York sent a letter to Bishop Franz 

explaining the circumstances surrounding Creager's departure from the military. The Military 

Ordinariate wrote, "I regret to write that Fr. Robert Creager has been asked to submit his 

resignation and he should be returning to the diocese about September 1st. I don't have the 

details, but it is suggested that in a future assignment he be appointed to a busy parish where he 

not have time to associate too much with young men as effeminate ones may cause him trouble." 

Plaintiff alleges that this letter from New York clergy to the bishop of CDOP was code 

used by the Military Ordinariate that was understood by the defendant Diocese. and implied it 

was for sex with young men. 1 Creager was sent back by the Military Ordinariate to the CDOP to 

continue as a priest. The records of the defendants contain no investigation of Creager following 

the letter from the Military Ordinariate, no criminal referral to police, and no disclosure to the 

public or members of the church by clergy in NY or Illinois. 

Creager continued abusing several minor boys when he returned to the Diocese. Plaintiff 

testified that defendants' employees, including the housekeeper of Creager at St. John, knew that 

plaintiff slept with Creager in the rectory and even washed the minor plaintiff's pajamas when he 

slept there. 

1 It is unclear to the Court whether this pertained to homosexuality or also implicated an attraction to and 

involvement with minors. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

5 of 12 

Page 5 of 12 

[* 5]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

According to the Report of the Attorney General of Illinois, the defendants conscious! y 

failed to act when they knew of sexual crimes against minors in the past prior to the abuse here. 

Bishop Meyers of CDOP claimed lack of knowledge regarding sex abuses brought to the 

attention of the Diocese because of "haphazard" filing. He also testified that it was not the 

Church's practice to tell the public about priest sexual abuse, because CDOP wished to protect 

the reputation of the priest. The Bishop attempted to reinstate a priest who had molested a boy 

and was surprised that the parents were "so upset." In some instances, the Bishop simply 

assigned the accused priest to a new parish. 

The hiding of sexual allegations against priests of the Peoria diocese was a "practice" 

according to the report of the attorney general of Illinois. In the Attorney General Report, 

Abusive Clerics and Religious Brothers in the Peoria Diocese are discussed. Creager is one of 

the priest abusers discussed and allegations of his abuse were deemed credible by CDOP. 

DISCUSSION 

Summary Judgment Standard 

It is well settled that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted 

where there is any doubt as to the existence of a material issue of fact. Black v. Kohl's Dept. 

Stores, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 958 (3rd Dept. 2011); Benizii v. Bank of Hudson, 50 A.D.3d 1372 (2008). 

Considering the drastic nature of the remedy, the party moving for summary judgment must 

establish primafacie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Jacobsen v. New York City 

Health and Hospitals Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824 (2014); Voss v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d 728 

(2014). "This burden is a heavy one and on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be 

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Jacobsen at 833. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

6 of 12 

Page 6 of 12 

[* 6]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

The non-moving party must be accorded the benefit of every reasonable inference from 

the record proof. Winne v. Town of Duanesburg, 86 A.D.3d 779 (2011). It is not the Court's role 

to determine issues of fact or credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist. Vega 

v. Restani Const. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499 (2012); Green v. Quincy Amusements, Inc., 108 A.D.3d 

591 (2013); Pearson v. Dix McBride, LLC, 63 A.D.3d 895 (2009). 

If the proponent of summary judgment fails to make a prima facie showing of entitlement 

to judgment as a matter oflaw, then the court must deny the motion, regardless of the sufficiency 

of the opposition set forth by the opponent of the motion. Voss, supra; Smalls v. AJI Industries, 

Inc., IO N.Y.3d 733 (2008). The proponent of a motion for summary judgment cannot rely 

merely on conclusory, unsubstantiated assertions. Longtemps v. Oliva, 110 A.D.3d 1316 (2013). 

It is likewise insufficient for the proponent of summary judgment to merely point to gaps 

in the defendant's proof DiBartolomeo v. St. Peter's Hosp. of City of Albany, 73 A.D.3d 1326 

(2010); Rachlin v. Michaels Arts & Crafts, 118 A.D.3d 1391 (2014). A motion for summary 

judgment should not be granted if there is uncertainty as to the existence of triable issues of fact 

when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Flower 

v. Noonan, 271 A.D.2d 825 (2000). 

In this action, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing judgment as a 

matter oflaw. 

This Court Has Jurisdiction Over Defendants Pursuant to CPLR 302(A)(l) 

CPLR §302 subsections (a)(l), New York's long arm statute, provides in relevant part: 

302. Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries. 

(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

7 of 12 

Page 7 of 12 

[* 7]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court 

may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, or his executor or 

administrator, who in person or through an agent: 

1. transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods 

or services in the state; 

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly recognized that CPLR §302(a)(l) "is a 'single act 

statute' and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction." Kreutter v 

McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 467 [1988]. In addition to the "single act", personal 

jurisdiction attaches where: (1) "the defendant's activities here were purposeful"; and (2) there is 

a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted." Id. 

In PC-16 Doe v. Hill Regional Career High Sch., 223 A.D.3d 518 (2d Dept. 2024). 

The Appellate Division held in pertinent part: 

... plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that defendants are subject to personal 

jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) which provides, as relevant, that a court may 

exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who in person or through an agent 

transacts any business within the state. The statute requires "[p]urposeful activities," i.e., 

"those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of 

conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of 

its laws" (Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007] [internal quotation marks 

omitted]). The statute "does not require that the business in question be commercial in 

nature" (Edwardo v Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 579 F Supp 3d 456,473 [SD 

NY 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted], affd 66 F4th 69 [2d Cir 2023]), and "proof 

of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the 

defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were 

purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim 

asserted" (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460,467 [1988]). 

PC-16 Doe v. Hill Reg'l Career High Sch., 223 A.D.3d 518, 518-19 (2024). 

The First Department affirmed the trial court's decision to exercise personal jurisdiction 

over out-of-state defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(l) based on the plaintiffs allegation that 

they were sexually assaulted on a trip to New York that was organized and led by the 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

8 of 12 

Page 8 of 12 

[* 8]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

defendants' choir director. PC-16 Doe at 519 ("the field trip at issue ... constituted 'purposeful 

activity', in New York, namely, an 'act by which ... defendant purposefully avails itself of the 

privilege of conducting activities here."') Id. 

The facts in this matter are analogous to those in PC-16 Doe. Here, as alleged, 

Defendants authorized and promoted a trip to New York - a purposeful act - thereby invoking 

this State's privileges and benefits. The pilgrimage was purposeful religious activity by the 

Diocese of Peoria and St. John which involved soliciting pilgrims from the pulpit, the Bishop of 

Peoria authorizing Creager to lead pilgrims in New York, Rome and the Holy Land, obtaining 

coverage for Creager to be absent from his parish for almost three weeks to lead pilgrims on a 

pilgrimage involving vocations, evangelization, religious education and the protection of 

children. The pilgrimage was a means of evangelizing plaintiff and for plaintiff to evangelize 

others by sharing his religious experiences on the pilgrimage with others upon his return home, 

which he did. 

During the pilgrimage, Plaintiff engaged in religious study. He also deepened his faith 

with prayer, daily mass, and the sacraments to increase his commitment to the church and his 

desire to become a priest. The evangelization of Plaintiff and others, encouragement of 

plaintiff/minor's vocation and the study of the catholic faith were the business of the diocese 

conducted in New York during the pilgrimage. 

In New York, Creager led Plaintiff to historic religious cites tied to the early days of 

Catholicism in the U.S. They prayed and participated in mass at the churches in New York. Fr. 

Creager also lead prayers and said mass and administered the sacraments in the hotel room he 

shared with the Plaintiff. Creager also heard the confession of Plaintiff in the hotel room in NY 

during the pilgrimage. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

9 of 12 

Page 9 of 12 

[* 9]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

In their reply, Defendants correctly point out that PC-16 Doe was a motion to dismiss 

rather than a summary judgment motion, where the court assumed the truth of plaintiffs 

allegations. However, this does not warrant a different result, as Defendant has failed to meet its 

primafacie burden in establishing the right to judgment as a matter oflaw. Additionally, 

Defendant's own reply papers acknowledge the affidavit submitted by Plaintiff contests the facts 

upon which they rely in seeking summary judgment. 

However, the Court rejects Defendants' argument that said affidavit contradicts 

Plaintiffs prior testimony to the point of requiring the Court to disregard same. 

Plaintiff's Cause of Action Under The CVA Could 

Not Have Been Asserted in The 2010 Bankruptcy Proceeding 

Thirty years after the subject abuse, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. At that time, 

Plaintiff did not list his claims against Defendants in his bankruptcy schedules. 

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an estate is created. Section 541(a)(l) of the 

Bankruptcy Code provides that "all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the 

commencement of the case" become property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(l). "Property" 

includes causes of action possessed by a debtor at the time of the filing of the case. In re Ross, 

548 B.R. 632, 637 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2016), ajf'd sub nom. Mendelsohn v. Ross, 251 F. Supp. 3d 

518 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). 

In 2010, when Plaintiffs bankruptcy case was opened, he had no legal or equitable 

claims which could have been asserted against the Defendants. His claims were barred by the 

then-operative statute oflimitations. 

Almost a full ten years later, New York's Child Victims Act, for the first time ever, 

created a window for the statute oflimitations to be extended in cases like Plaintiffs. 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

10 of 12 

Page 10 of 12 

[* 10]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246/2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2024 

The question for the court is whether Plaintiffs cause of action under the CV A accrued 

before 2010. The CV A provides in pertinent part: 

... every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or 

negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or 

condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense ... 

committed against a child less than eighteen years of age ... which is barred as of the 

effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired, 

and/or the plaintiff previously failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to 

file a claim, is hereby revived, and action thereon may be commenced not earlier than six 

months after, and not later than two years and six months after the effective date of this 

section. 

N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214-g (McKinney). 

The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs cause of action which could only be 

asserted based on the revival provisions in the CV A could not have accrued in 2010 as the CV A 

had not yet been enacted. 

Based on the same reasoning the Court rejects Defendants' argument that the complaint 

must be dismissed based on a theory of judicial estoppel. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE it is hereby: 

ORDERED that Defendants motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further 

ORDERED that counsel appear for a virtual pre-trial conference on October 8, 2024, at 

3:30 pm where a trial date will be set, and a pre-trial conference order issued; 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 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

11 of 12 

Page 11 of 12 

[* 11]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 

INDEX NO. 950246 / 2019 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09 / 17 / 2024 

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 

Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the address 

www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further 

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

is hereby denied; and it is further 

This constitutes the decision and order of this court. 

9/17/2024 

DATE 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

~ CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED 0 DENIED 

SETTLE ORDER 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

950246/2019 MM-1-DOE vs. CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PEORIA 

Motion No. 006 

12 of 12 

SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C. 

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

Page 12 of 12 

[* 12]