Court Opinion

ID: 9959910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:00.980846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.392604
License: Public Domain

Anonymous WC v Diocese of Brooklyn
               2024 NY Slip Op 31213(U)
                      April 8, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 502043/2020
               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. 502043/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                       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.          502043/2020

           ANONYMOUS WC,                                                     MOTION DATE          3/20/2024
                                             Plaintiff,

                                                                             MOTION SEQ. NO.        002
           DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN AND ST. CECILIA ROMAN
           CATHOLIC CHURCH D/B/A ST. CECILIA CHURCH -
           DIVINE MERCY PARISH,
                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
                                            Defendants.                               MOTION

          -------- ------- ------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 January 27, 2020, the Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the New York Child

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

          Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Cecilia Roman Catholic Church d/b/a St. Cecilia Church - Divine

          Mercy Parish asserting causes of action for Negligent Hiring, Retention and Supervision, and

          Respondeat SuperiorNicarious Liability Outrage and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

         Plaintiff alleges that in approximately 1982 to 1985, when Plaintiff was approximately 10 to 14

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

          ("Fr. Sexton") and non-party Francis Capellupo ("Fr. Capellupo ), who were then priests at St.

          Cecilia's. As a result of the alleged sexual abuse, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained physical and

          psychological injuries.

          502043/2020 ANONYMOUS WC 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. 502043/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                                        PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                 On or about October 17, 2022 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 April 3, 2023.

                 On or about September 21, 2023, St. Cecilia's produced its responses to Plaintiffs

          Standard Automatic Disclosures and Plaintiffs Standard Combined Demands.                  The only

          documents produced was St. Cecilia's certificate of incorporation and Plaintiffs sacramental

          records - twelve pages in total plus some insurance information that may or may not be relevant.

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

          this Court's Order. None of the documents identify the Plaintiff, the alleged perpetrator, any of

          the Plaintiffs family, or any employees or volunteers of St. Cecilia's during the relevant time

          period. None of the documents are sacramental records, school records or other records from the

          relevant time period.

                 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 twelve pages of paper discovery already provided.

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

          502043/2020 ANONYMOUS WC 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. 502043/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                           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 four years into this litigation it is premature for the

           Court to require such an affidavit.

                   The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.

                  Jackson v. City ofNew 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 L[fe 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); Frank v.

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

           502043/2020 ANONYMOUS WC 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. 502043/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                         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 ofNew 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).

           502043/2020 ANONYMOUS WC V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002                                                                                Page 4 of 5

[* 4]                                                       4 of 5
 [FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/09/2024 03:59 P~                                                       INDEX NO. 502043/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54                                                                            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 four 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

           502043/2020 ANONYMOUS WC V DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN ET AL
           MOTION NO.002
                                                                                                        Page 5 of 5

[* 5]                                                       5 of 5