Court Opinion

ID: 9959912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:05.899625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.397524
License: Public Domain

ARK512 Doe v Diocese of Brooklyn
               2024 NY Slip Op 31215(U)
                      April 8, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 518161/2021
               Judge: Alexander M. Tisch
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.
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                        INDEX NO. 518161/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                          KINGS COUNTY
           PRESENT:         HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH                               PART              18/CVA
                                                                       Justice
                                              ---------X                          INDEX NO.          518161/2021

            ARK512 DOE,                                                           MOTION DATE          3/20/2024
                                                Plaintiff,

                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.        002
            DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN a/k/a THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
            DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK; BROTHERS OF
            THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS a/k/a BROTHERS OF THE
            CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS NEW YORK PROVINCE a/k/a
            BORHTERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS DISTRICT OF
            NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a FSC DENA a/k/a LA SALLE
            PROVINCIALATE, INC.; ST. CECILIA; DIVINE MERCY                          DECISION + ORDER ON
            ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH; and DOES 1-5 whose                                      MOTION
            identities are unknown to Plaintiff,

                                               Defendants.

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002)
           were read on this motion to/for                          VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT

                                                       BACKGROUND

                   On August 12, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the New York Child

           Victims Act ("CVA"), CPLR 214-g, by filing a Summons and Complaint naming defendants the

           Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York (the "Diocese"), Brothers of the Christian

           Schools, St. Cecilia's and Divine Mercy Roman Catholic Church asserting causes of action for

           Negligence, Negligent Training and Supervision of Employees, and Negligent Retention of

           Employees.       Plaintiff alleges that in approximately 1980 to 1981, when Plaintiff was

           approximately 11 years old and a parishioner at St. Cecilia's, he was sexually abused by non-party

           Patrick Sexton ("Fr. Sexton"), who was a priest at St. Cecilia's. Plaintiff further alleges that from

           518161/2021 ARK512 DOE V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002                                                                                     Page 1 of 5

[* 1]                                                            1 of 5
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                      INDEX NO. 518161/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           approximately 1981 to 1984, when Plaintiff was approximately 12 to 14 years old and a parishioner

           at St. Cecilia's, he was sexually abused by non-party Joseph Garito ("Br. Garito"), who was then

           a priest at St. Cecilia's. As a result of the alleged sexual abuse, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained

           physical and psychological injuries.

                                           PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                    On August 7, 2023, at a Compliance Conference regarding the cases proceeding against

           Fr. Patrick Sexton, this Court ordered counsel for St. Cecilia's to provide responses to Plaintiffs

           Standard Automatic Disclosures and Combined Demands on or before September 22, 2023. A

           Compliance Conference Stipulation and Order to this effect was filed on August 14, 2023.

                    On September 21, 2023, St. Cecilia's produced its responses to Plaintiff's Standard

           Automatic Disclosures and Standard Combined Demands. The only documents produced were

           St. Cecilia's certificate of incorporation and Plaintiffs sacramental records -       eleven pages in

           total.

                    Plaintiff received no other documents or communication from St. Cecilia's in response to

           this Court's Order.

                    At a January 4, 2024 Compliance Conference, the Court ordered St. Cecilia's to produce a

           Jackson affidavit in the event it claims no records exist responsive to any discovery request. The

           Court also ordered St. Cecilia's to produce a witness for deposition on or before April 26, 2024.

                                           THE PENDING MOTION

                    St. Cecilia's now moves for an order vacating that part of this Court's prior order directing

           them to produce a Jackson type affidavit, substantiating their claim that they have no further

           responsive documents to produce other than the eleven pages of paper discovery already provided.

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

           518161/2021 ARK512 DOE V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002                                                                                Page 2 of 5

[* 2]                                                       2 of 5
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                        INDEX NO. 518161/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                                                 DISCUSSION

                  Plaintiff argues that the motion does not lie pursuant to CPLR 5015(a). However, as the

           order was made at a conference and without notice, St. Cecilia's is entitled to move to vacate the

           order, so that it will have a vehicle for appellate review Velasquez v. CF T., Inc., 267 A.D.2d

           229, 230 (1999). Additionally, this Court specifically allowed for such motion in the order to

           ensure St. Cecilia's rights to appellate review would be preserved. As such, the Court will

           address the merits of the motion.

                   St. Cecilia's argues that it should not be required to provide a Jackson type affidavit

           because it is not required to by the CPLR. Alternatively, St. Cecilia's argues that the Court order

           was vague because it did not specify what is expected to be included in the Jackson type

           affidavit. Finally, St. Cecilia's asserts that three years into this litigation it is premature for the

           Court to require such an affidavit.

                   The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.

                   Jackson v. City of New York, 586 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1st Dep't 1992) has been interpreted to

           require an affidavit from a record searcher to confirm that documents requested as a part of

           discovery have been completely searched for and not found.

                   New York courts have required Jackson affidavits in a wide array of cases, and contrary

           to movant's argument these holdings in no way require that the facts of the case must align with

           those in Jackson v. City of New York, 586 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1st Dep't 1992). Rather the affidavits

           are generally used when a party asserts that it has no documents in response to a discovery

           demand. See eg Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. KPMG LLP, 185 N.Y.S.3d 651 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.

           Cnty. 2023); Agius v. Gray Line Corp., 169 N.Y.S.3d 800 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2022); Frankv.

           Morgans Hotel Grp. Mgmt. LLC, 139 N.Y.S.3d 521 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2021); Mesropian v

           518161/2021 ARK512 DOE V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002
                                                                                                          Page 3 of 5

[* 3]                                                        3 of 5
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                     INDEX NO. 518161/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           Providence Care, Inc. 67 Misc.3d 1235Z(A)(Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2020); WMC Mortg. Corp. v.

           Vandermulen 32 Misc.3d 1206(A)(Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cnty. 2011); Lynx Capital Partners of NJ,

           LLC v Nayes Capital LLC 217 AD3d 571 (2 nd Dept 2023 ); Anuchina v Marine Transport

           Logistics, Inc. 216 AD3d 1126 (2 nd Dept 2023); Hassn v. Armouth International, Inc. 74 Misc.3d

           1204(a) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2022); Matityahu v Miller 75 Misc3d 1233(A) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.

           2022).

                    To the extent St. Cecilia's argues the order requiring a Jackson affidavit is vague and it is

           certain what is required to comply, the Court finds said argument is not raised in good faith. As

           noted, the order was issued after a conference with the parties. At the conference the affidavit

           and what it was to include were specifically addressed and discussed at length. Additionally, the

           case law in the moving papers cited by St. Cecilia's is replete with explanations as to what

           constitutes a Jackson affidavit. But to be clear the Court will now underscore in writing what it

           expects such an affidavit to contain:

                    When the response to a discovery request is, in effect, that there are no responsive
                    documents within the party's custody, possession, or control, that party must provide a
                    detailed statement, under oath, by someone with direct knowledge of the facts setting
                    forth the past and present status of the relevant documents; where they were kept; what
                    efforts, if any, were made to preserve them; the circumstances surrounding their
                    disappearance or destruction; and the means and methods used to conduct a search for
                    them (Jackson v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 768, 770; Dziegielewsky v. Advanced
                    Integrative Wellness, LLC, Sup Ct, Nassau County, March 9, 2010, Murphy, J., at 2
                    [2010 WL 1515585]; Tower Ins. Co. of New Yorkv. Headley, Sup Ct, New York County,
                    August 11, 2009, Stallman, J., at 4 [2009 WL 2578547]; Lazzaro v. MJM Industries, Inc.,
                    Sup Ct, New York, April 7, 2003, Jones, J., at 3 [2003 WL 25573908] ). In short, the
                    affidavit submitted must provide the court with a basis to find that the search conducted
                    was a thorough one or that it was conducted in a good faith effort to provide the
                    necessary records to the plaintiff (Jackson v. City of New York. supra at 770).

           WMC Mortg. Corp. v. Vandermulen, 32 Misc. 3d 1206(A)(Sup. Ct. 2011).

           518161/2021 ARK512 DOE V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002
                                                                                                       Page 4 of 5

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                         INDEX NO. 518161/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                   In the instant case, the documents requested by Plaintiff are part of Court-Ordered

           Demands contained in the Case Management Orders and are central to the issued raised in this

           action. St. Cecilia's has asserted it has no documents in response to the majority of Plaintiffs

           discovery demands. Despite multiple requests, St. Cecilia's has refused to supplement its

           responses or provide Plaintiffs with a detailed account of its efforts to preserve, collect, and

           search for potentially responsive information.

                   Nor does the Court find that the requirement is premature. We are now three years into

           this litigation, almost no paper discovery has been produced and Defendant's witness has yet to

           be deposed.

                   Based on the foregoing, the motion to vacate that part of this Court's prior order requiring

           Defendant to provide a Jackson type affidavit is denied.

                     4/8/24
                     DATE                                                   HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH, 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

           518161/2021 ARK512 DOE V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002                                                                                  Page 5 of 5

                                                            5 of 5    -
[* 5]