### 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 NEWYORK 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 Plaintiffcommencedthis action pursuant to The ChildVictim's Act seeking damages for alleged sexual abuse he sufferedwhen he was between the ages of6 and 9 years old, at the hands ofFatherLeo J. Courcy ("Courcy"), a Roman Catholic cleric alleged to havebeen employedby the Archdiocese, Diocese ofBrooklyn, Diocese ofBurlington, and St. Frances De Chantal. ALLEGED FACTS Plaintiffalleges the following facts in the motion papers, some ofwhich are contestedby the Burlington Diocese. Courcy was a priest employedby Burlington Diocese from ordination whenhe became a priestuntil his removal from the priesthood in 2009. Evenbefore Courcy's ordination, Burlington Diocese was aware that Courcy was not suited to work with children. The Burlington Diocese ordained Courcyin New York in 1962.

951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
1 of 7 Page 1 of7 

### [* 1]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
Courcybegan ministering in Vermont on May 19, 1962. Just 3 days later, a report was written indicating that Courcy had difficulty collaborating with those ofhis own age and was hyper focused on working with youth. ByJanuary 1965, Burlington Diocese sent Courcy for treatment at the Institute ofLiving,
one ofthe primary treatment centers in the U.S. for Catholic priests who sexually abused children. Defendantpaid 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 orparish work was notbest for Courcy. In September 1965, Courcywas admitted to the Fanny Allen Hospital for several months. Courcy was then admitted to the Psychiatric Department ofDeGosebriand Hospital. Defendant allowed Courcy to continue to present himselfas a priest, celebrate Mass, and workwith parishioners during this time, despite its own concerns, and the concerns ofthe doctors treating Courcy. In 1966, for unspecifiedreasons, Courcywas terminated from a parish assignment and sent to Via Coeli/Servants ofthe Paraclete-anotherwell-known treatment facility for priests who had sexually abused children. Courcywas toldhe mustremain at this treatment facility indefinitely until the Bishop personally authorized Courcy to leave. The Chancellor ofBurlington Diocese informed one ofthe priests at Servants ofthe Paraclete that Courcy should be removed completely from all communication, especially with young people. One ofCourcy's doctors acknowledged that Courcy hadpsychosexual disturbances.

951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
2 of 7 Page 2 of7 

### [* 2]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

In 1967, the Bishop ofBurlington Diocese acknowledged that Courcy should notbe counseling students but would consider leave to work outside the diocese. One ofthe priests at the treatment centerwarned Burlington Diocese thathe is not convinced that Courcy couldreturn to full ministry. Nevertheless, during this time, Courcy ministered in Santa Fe and El Paso. The Chancellor ofBurlington Diocese was informed that the Archbishop ofSanta Fe advised Courcy to return to Servants ofthe Paraclete because his work was unsatisfactory. In 1969, Courcywas again admitted to the Servants ofthe Paraclete. The Bishop of Burlington Diocese wrote a letterto Courcyreprimanding him and acknowledging Courcy's psychosocial orpsychiatric problems. In 1970, the Bishop ofDefendantwrote a letter to one ofthe priests working at the Servants ofthe Paraclete to see ifhe knew ofany other dioceses wanting to take Servants ofthe Paraclete guests, like Courcy, during theirrecoveryperiod. In 1971, Defendant sent Courcy to the Archdiocese ofOttawa and informed Burlington Dioceseparishioners 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 gethis degree in Religious Education. In 1975, Courcywrote a letter to the Bishop ofBurlington 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 ofBurlington Diocese gave the Vice Chancellor ofthe 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 NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
3 of 7 Page 3 of7 

### [* 3]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

Personnel Board ofthe Diocese ofBurlington consistently advised me to allow Father Courcy to
serve outside the diocese because he can be a source ofdisturbance within. Every place thathe has been

- and there have been several

- the history is the same." The Bishop acknowledged that Courcy hadproven 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 ofBrooklyn that itwouldbe wise to have
someone checkin on Courcy periodically everynow and then to take prompt action when difficulties arose, advising that Courcy'spastrecord would supportprompt action In the early 1980s, Courcy asked to come back to Burlington Diocese, but the Bishop denied these requests and explicitly told Courcy that itwas best for himto stay in the Diocese of Brooklyn, away from Vermont, basedupon the recommendation ofthe Diocesan Personnel Board. The alleged abuse in this case occurred between 1981 and 1984. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 29, 2021, Burlington Diocesebrought a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personaljurisdiction, which the court (Love, J) denied. On March 13, 2023, Defendant moved to renew its Motion to Dismiss based upon a Southern District ofNew York case applying the 12(b)(2) federal motion to dismiss standard, Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 579 F. Supp. 3d456 (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. Plaintifffiled a Notice ofAppeal on September 29, 2023.

951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
4 of 7 Page 4 of7 

### [* 4]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108

THE PENDING MOTION INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiffmoved for an orderpursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to
renew and vacate the July 31, 2023 order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffsmotion is primarilybased on this Court's October 5, 2023 decision inARK301 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 ofthe action against Burlington Diocese and granted plaintiffs request forjurisdictional discovery. That action concerns the same defendant, Burlington Diocese, and arises out ofconduct bythe same perpetrator, Courcy. In granting the motion for reargument in that case, this Court held Justice Love had erred in finding thatEdwardo was binding precedent, thatEduardo was factually distinguishable from the case at bar, and that the underlying decision failed to address the request forjurisdictional discovery. In both actions Justice Love was clearhe did not agree with the holding inEduardo: While this Court disagrees with the (Eduardo) holding and would frankly prefer a different outcome as, accepting all ofplaintiffs allegations as true, the Diocese of Burlington knew ofCourcy's dangerous propensities and, in its control ofCourcy, transferred him to New York, where he did allegedly abuse plaintiff, then the Diocese of Burlington shouldreasonably expect to be called into court in New York. Justice calls out for the Diocese ofBurlington to be subject to discovery and address this matter on the merits rather then short circuiting the process. However, there is no motion pendingbefore this Court for reargument, as there was in the related action, rather here Plaintiffseeks 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 NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
5 of 7 Page 5 of7 

### [* 5]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

This Court does not find said decision to be abasis for renewal nor can this Court's prior decision in the related action reasonablybe considered to be a clarification ofdecisional law. CPLR §2221 is an inappropriate vehicle to vacate ajudgment. Maddux v. Schur, 53 A.D.3d 738, 739 (2008). CPLR §2221(e) is not directed at final orders orjudgments. While, CPLR §5015(a)(2) applies to final orders and finaljudgments in actions, Plaintiffs application can not properlybe 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 priormotion 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 ifan order orjudgmentis final, a change in the law thereafter is ofno value to an aggrievedparty. 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 plaintiffsmotion 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 ofthis order, plaintiffshall serve a copy of this orderwith notice ofentry on the Clerk ofthe 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 ClerkProcedures for

951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEWYORK ET AL Motion No. 005
6 of 7 Page 6 of7 

### [* 6]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108 INDEX NO. 951179/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024
ElectronicallyFiled Cases (accessible atthe "E-Filing"page onthe court's website atthe addresswww.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]. This constitutes the decision and order ofthe 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 NEWYORK 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]