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.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS 

Justice 

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

ARK644 DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

- V -

ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, DIOCESE OF 

BROOKLYN, ST. FRANCES DE CHANTAL, DOES 1-5 

WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, 

Defendant. 

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

PART 57M 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

MOTION DATE 11/27/2023 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION 

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 

Motion No. 005 

1 of 7 

Page 1 of 7 

[* 1]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

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 

Motion No. 005 

2 of 7 

Page 2 of 7 

[* 2]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

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 

Motion No. 005 

3 of 7 

Page 3 of 7 

[* 3]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

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 

Motion No. 005 

4 of 7 

Page 4 of 7 

[* 4]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

THE PENDING MOTION 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024 

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 of Brooklyn 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 

Motion No. 005 

5 of 7 

Page 5 of 7 

[* 5]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

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 

Motion No. 005 

6 of 7 

Page 6 of 7 

[* 6]
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 

INDEX NO. 951179/2021 

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 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

~ CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED 0 DENIED 

SETTLE ORDER 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL 

Motion No. 005 

7 of 7 

SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C. 

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

Page 7 of 7 

[* 7]