Court Opinion

ID: 9929968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:39.255778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:53.814169
License: Public Domain

ARK406 Doe v Jesuit Fathers & Bros.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30357(U)
                    January 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 950370/2021
                  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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 950370/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. SABRINA KRAUS                                               PART                             57M
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.          950370/2021
             ARK406 DOE,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         09/11/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                                 - V -

             JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS, JESUIT FATHERS
             AND BROTHERS NK/A SOCIETY OF JESUS D/B/A U.S.A.
             MIDWEST PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS F/K/A
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             CHICAGO PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS,
             DOES 1-5 WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO                                                     MOTION
             PLAINTIFF

                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
            55,56,57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65
            were read on this motion to/for                                                         DISMISS

                                                      BACKGROUND

                      Plaintiff alleged being sexually abused as a child by Jesuit priest, Father Maurice Meyers,

            S.J. ("Meyers") while on camping trips at Ten Mile River Camp in Narrowsburg, New York and

            Alpine Scout Camp in Alpine, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant time Plaintiff was

            a New York State Resident.

                      Defendants The New York Province of the Society of Jesus and The USA Northeast

            Province of the Society of Jesus, Inc. i/ s/h/a Jesuit Fathers and Brothers d/b/ a The New York

            Province of the Society of Jesus a/k/a U.S.A. Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus move to

            dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) and (a)(5).

                      The motion is denied for the reasons set forth below.

             950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS                                                  Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 003

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 950370/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                           DISCUSSION

                   New York's pleading standard is fundamentally notice pleading-a very liberal standard.

                   CPLR 3013 provides:

                   Statements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties
                   notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended
                   to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense.

                   "The allegations of a complaint generally need not be set forth in detail; it is sufficient if

            the parties are (1) put on notice of the underlying transactions or occurrences, and (2) the

            material elements of the cause of action are stated." Mid-Hudson Valley Fed. Credit Union v.

            Quartararo & Lois, PLLC, 64 N.Y.S.3d 389, 393 (3d Dep't 2017), a.ffd, 31 N.Y.3d 1090 (2018).

            Furthermore, "[a] complaint need not, and should not, anticipate and refute defenses." Sabater ex

            rel. Santana v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 704 N.Y.S.2d 800, 804 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2000).

                   Plaintiffs Complaint meets both requirements.

                   On both a CPLR §321 l(a)(5) motion to dismiss on the ground that a cause of action is

            barred by the applicable statute of limitations and a CPLR §321 l(a)(7) motion to dismiss for

            failure to state a cause of action, a court must give the pleading a liberal construction, accept the

            facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and afford the plaintiff the benefit of every possible

            favorable inference. JP. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 21 N.Y.3d 324, 334 (2013); US.

            Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Gordon, 72 N.Y.S.3d 156, 159 (2d Dep't 2018); Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates

            Dev. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 409,414 (2001).

                   "The sole criterion is whether from the complaint's four corners factual allegations are

            discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law." Operative Cake

            Corp. v. Nassour, 910 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dept., 2005); Shaya B. Pac., LLC v. Wilson, Elser,

            Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, 827 N.Y.S.2d 231,234 (2d Dept., 2006).

             950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS                                Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 003

[* 2]                                                      2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 950370/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                   Defendant seeks to dismiss "that portion of plaintiff's second amended complaint which

            alleges claims of sexual misconduct in New Jersey as time barred given that the claims were

            asserted beyond New York's revival window under CPLR 214-g." However, no new claims or

            causes of action were asserted in the Second Amended Complaint. The allegations relating to the

            sexual abuse by Meyers in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint are identical to those alleged

            in Plaintiff's Complaint filed June 18, 2021. Namely that from approximately 1956 to 1957,

            when Plaintiff was approximately 11 to 12 years old, Meyers engaged in unpermitted sexual

            contact with Plaintiff.

                   Plaintiff asserted his causes of action and made allegations relating to the sexual abuse

            that occurred in New Jersey in the original Complaint, but just did not specify in the prior

            complaint the location where the alleged abuse occurred.

                   Defendant argues that some of Plaintiff's claims are time-barred because Plaintiff does

            not allege that he was a resident of New York at the time of abuse. This argument is defeated by

            the Second Amended Complaint itself wherein Plaintiff explicitly alleges that at all times

            material, Plaintiff resided in the State of New York. All material times includes the time of the

            alleged abuse.

                   As acknowledged by movants, actions revived under the CVA include claims where the

            abuse took place outside the state as long as plaintiff was a New York State Resident when the

            abuse occurred. Walloch v. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism 219 AD3d 42l(lst

            Dept, 2023); Shapiro v. Syracuse University 208 Ad3d 958 (4th Dept, 2022). A claim that

            accrues in favor of a New York resident will be governed by the New York statute of limitations

            regardless of where the claim accrued. Doe v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 2023 NY Slip Op.

             950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS                              Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 003

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 950370/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            31014(U)(CVA revival window applied to a New York plaintiff's claims, where sexual abuse

            occurred in Canada).

                      Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied.

                      WHEREFORE it is hereby:

                      ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is denied; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that movants shall serve and file an answer within 30 days of the date of this

            order; and it is further

                      ORDERED that counsel appear for a virtual compliance conference on March 20, 2024 at

            3:00 PM; 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 any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and

            is hereby denied.

                      This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

                      1/30/2024
                        DATE                                                           SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C.

                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                       NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED         0    DENIED     GRANTED IN PART              □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                        SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN          FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             950370/2021 DOE, ARK406 vs. JESUIT FATHERS AND BROTHERS                                     Page4 of 4
             Motion No. 003

[* 4]                                                          4 of 4