Court Opinion

ID: 9929184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:16.921036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:59.385745
License: Public Domain

PC-34 DOE v Immaculate Conception Sch.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30339(U)
                    January 26, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 950003/2021
               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.
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:          HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH                          PART                               18
                                                                    Justice
                                                                        -X    INDEX NO.            950003/2021
            PC-34 DOE,
                                                                              MOTION DATE           04/12/2021
                                                Plaintiff,
                                                                              MOTION SEQ. NO.           004
                                        - V -

            IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL, IMMACULATE
            CONCEPTION CHURCH, THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW                           DECISION + ORDER ON
            YORK,                                                                      MOTION

                                                Defendants.
           ---------------------------------------------------------------X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
           39
           were read on this motion to/for                                       DISMISS

                      Upon the foregoing documents, defendant Archdiocese of New York (the "Archdiocese")

           moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) (a) dismissing the third cause of action, for

           negligent infliction of emotional distress; (b) the fourth cause of action, for premises liability; (c)

           the fifth cause of action, for breach of fiduciary duty; and (d) striking the reference to the

           doctrine of respondeat superior contained within paragraph 47 of plaintiffs negligent hiring,

           retention, supervision and direction cause of action (Motion Seq. 004).

                      Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries

           sustained from alleged sexual abuse by Mr. Garrett, an employee of defendants Immaculate

           Conception School, Immaculate Conception Church, and the Archdiocese. Plaintiff alleges that

           the abuse began in or about 1970 when plaintiff was 12 years old, and that the abuse occurred on

           the premises of Immaculate Conception School while Garrett was acting in his assigned role of

           teacher.

           950003/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
           Motion No. 004                .                                                         Page 1 of 6

[* 1]                                                         1 of 6
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                   Plaintiff did not oppose the instant motion. Additionally, defendants Immaculate

           Conception School and Immaculate Conception Church previously moved for dismissal of

           plaintiff's third and fifth claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of

           fiduciary duty. By Decision and Order dated September 11, 2023, this Court granted the motion

           and dismissed the third and fifth causes of action, finding they were, respectively, duplicative

           and insufficiently pled (NYSCEF doc No. 59). For the same reasons, the Court now dismisses

           both claims as against the Archdiocese and turns to the remaining branches of the Archdiocese's

           motion.

                                                  DISCUSSION

                   In determining a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a)(7), a court's

           role is deciding "whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual

           allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a

           motion for dismissal will fail" (African Diaspora Maritime Corp. v Golden Gate Yacht Club, 109

           AD3d 204 [1st Dept 2013]; Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp., 104 AD3d 401

           [1st Dept 2013 ]). The standard on a motion to dismiss a pleading for failure to state a cause of

           action is not whether the party has artfully drafted the pleading, but whether deeming the

           pleading to allege whatever can be reasonably implied from its statements, a cause of action can

           be sustained (see Stendig, inc. v Thorn Rock Realty Co., 163 AD2d 46 [1st Dept 1990]; Leviton

           Manufacturing Co., Inc. v Blumberg, 242 AD2d 205,660 NYS2d 726 [1st Dept 1997] [on a

           motion for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept factual

           allegations as true]).

                   When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the pleadings

           must be liberally construed (see CPLR §3026; Siegmund Strauss, Inc., 104 AD3d 401, supra).

           950~03/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
           Motion No. 004                                                                         Page 2 of 6

[* 2]                                                     2 of 6
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

           The court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs 'the benefit

           of every possible favorable inference,"' and "determine only whether the facts as alleged fit into

          any cognizable legal theory" (Siegmund Strauss, Inc., 104 AD3d 401, supra; Nonnon v City of

          New York, 9 NY3d 825 [2007]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Leviton

          Manufacturing Co., Inc. v Blumberg, 242 AD2d 205 [1st Dept 1997]).

          Premises Liability

                  "In a premises liability case, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a defective

          condition, and (2) the defendant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the defect"

           (see Ingram v. COSTCO Wholesale Corp., 117 A.D.3d 685, 985 N.Y.S.2d 272 [2d Dept. 2014]).

          Plaintiff has alleged defendants had a duty to ensure the school was in a reasonably safe condition

           and defendants breached that duty by negligently failing to ensure the school was free of sexual

          predators, such as Mr. Garrett.

                  New York has upheld premises liability claims in sexual assault cases in circumstances

           where property owners failed to adequately secure their premises from outside assailants. In

           Gonzalez v Riverbay Corp., 150 AD3d 535 (1 st Dept 2014), the plaintiff alleged a premises liability

          claim against her co-op building complex after an individual snuck into the building's laundry

           room and assaulted her. The First Department, noting that the perpetrator had similarly entered

          other buildings in the complex before, held that the plaintiff raised an issue of fact regarding

          "whether defendants discharged their common-law duty to take minimal precautions to protect the

          tenants from foreseeable harm" (id. at 536 [internal citations omitted]).

                  Here, in contrast to cases such as Gonzalez, plaintiff is not arguing that defendants

          inadequately secured their property from intruders but contends defendants were negligent in

          allowing someone with known proclivities for abuse to work on their property. The allegations

           950~03/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
           Motron No. 004                                                                        Page 3 of 6

[* 3]                                                     3 of 6
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

           under plaintiffs premises liability claim thus duplicate those under his negligent hiring, retention,

           and supervision claim. In Nouel v 335 Wadsworth Reality LLC, 112 AD3d 493 (1st Dept 2013),

           the plaintiff sued an apartment building after being assaulted by a porter who was a registered sex

           offender. The First Department dismissed that plaintiffs premises liability claim, holding that

           "although couched as a premises liability claim," it "is merely duplicative of the negligent hiring,

           retention, and supervision claims" asserted against the building (id. at 494).

                  Similarly, premises liability claims in CVA cases premised on a negligent failure to

           supervise employees in CV A cases have been subject to dismissal, such as in Fay v Troy City Sch.

           Dist., 197 AD3d 1423 (3rd Dept 2021 ), involving abuse by the defendant school district's swim

           coach in which the Third Department dismissed plaintiffs claim for premises liability against the

           school district (id. at 1424 ["The conduct complained of in the causes of action for premises

           liability . . . falls entirely within the scope of plaintiffs separate causes of action for negligence,

           negligent supervision and negligent retention ... [the premises liability claim] must be dismissed

           as duplicative of the negligence, negligent supervision and negligent retention claims ... "]).

           Accordingly, this Court dismisses plaintiffs cause of action for premises liability against all

           defendants as duplicative.

                  The Complaint's reference to "respondeat superior"

                  Plaintiffs first cause of action alleges negligent hiring, supervision, and direction. While

           the Archdiocese does not seek dismissal of this claim entirely, the Archdiocese argues that

           Paragraph 47 under this claim impermissibly alleges liability predicated on the doctrine of

           reaspondeat superior. Paragraph 47 states that "[a]t all relevant times, Mr. Garrett acted in the

           course and scope of his employment with Defendants."

           950~03/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
           Motion No. 004                                                                          Page 4 of 6

[* 4]                                                      4 of 6
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                   It is well settled under New York Law that generally, acts of sexual abuse are considered

           to be "not within the scope or furtherance of the employment" (Mazzarella v Syracuse Diocese,

           100 AD3d 1384, 1385 [4th Dept 2012] at 1385 ["sexual abuse by clergy"]; see also Doe v Rohan,

           17 AD3d 509, 512 [2rd Dept 2005] ["[s]ince the bus driver's acts of sexual abuse and molestation

           were a clear departure from the scope of his employment, committed solely for personal reasons,

           and unrelated to the furtherance of his employer's business, neither the bus company nor the

           School District can be held vicariously liable for his acts"]; NX v Cabrini Med Ctr., 97 NY2d at

           251 ["[a] sexual assault perpetrated by a hospital employee is not in furtherance of hospital

           business and is a clear departure from the scope of employment, having been committed for wholly

           personal motives"]; Nevaeh T v City of New York, 132 AD3d 840, 843 [2nd Dept 2015] [alleged

           sexual misconduct by a teacher was not committed in furtherance of the DO E's business and not

           within the scope of employment]; Doe 1 v Bd. ofEduc. ofGreenport Union Free School Dist., 100

           AD3d 703, 705 [2d Dept 2012] [a school district was not vicariously liable where a teacher's aide

           allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with a student "off school premises and/or outside

           school hours," and where "the conduct ... was personally motivated [] and constituted a complete

           departure from her duties as a school district employee"]). Given that the conduct alleged by

           Garrett in Plaintiffs complaint constitutes a departure from his scope of employment under New

           York law, the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable and the Court grants the final branch

           of the Archdiocese's motion and deems Paragraph 47 stricken.

                                                 CONCLUSION

                  Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

                  ORDERED that the motion of defendant Archdiocese of New York for partial dismissal

           pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7) (Motion Seq. 004) is granted in its entirety; and it is further

            950?03/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
            Motion No. 004                                                                       Page 5 of 6

[* 5]                                                     5 of 6
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 950003/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2024

                   ORDERED that the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint are dismissed

           against all defendants; and it is further

                   ORDERED that Paragraph 47 of the complaint is stricken; and it is further

                   ORDERED that counsel for defendant Archdiocese of New York shall serve a copy of

           this order along with notice of entry on all parties within 14 days.

                   1/26/2024
                     DATE                                                    ALEXANDER M. TISCH, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

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

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

           950~03/2021 DOE, PC-34 vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL
           Motion No. 004                                                                        Page 6 of 6

[* 6]                                                      6 of 6