Court Opinion

ID: 9954325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:26.67634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:04.882702
License: Public Domain

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.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. SABRINA KRAUS                                               PART                              57M
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.          951179/2021
             ARK644 DOE,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/27/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         005
                                                 - V -

             ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, DIOCESE OF
             BROOKLYN, ST. FRANCES DE CHANTAL, DOES 1-5                                             DECISION + ORDER ON
             WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF,                                                   MOTION

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

            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

                      Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to The Child Victim's Act seeking damages for

            alleged sexual abuse he suffered when he was between the ages of 6 and 9 years old, at the hands

            of Father Leo J. Courcy ("Courcy"), a Roman Catholic cleric alleged to have been employed by

            the Archdiocese, Diocese of Brooklyn, Diocese of Burlington, and St. Frances De Chantal.

                                                      ALLEGED FACTS

                      Plaintiff alleges the following facts in the motion papers, some of which are contested by

            the Burlington Diocese.

                      Courcy was a priest employed by Burlington Diocese from ordination when he became a

            priest until his removal from the priesthood in 2009. Even before Courcy's ordination,

            Burlington Diocese was aware that Courcy was not suited to work with children. The Burlington

            Diocese ordained Courcy in New York in 1962.

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

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                   Courcy began ministering in Vermont on May 19, 1962. Just 3 days later, a report was

            written indicating that Courcy had difficulty collaborating with those of his own age and was

            hyper focused on working with youth.

                   By January 1965, Burlington Diocese sent Courcy for treatment at the Institute of Living,

            one of the primary treatment centers in the U.S. for Catholic priests who sexually abused

            children. Defendant paid 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 or parish work was not best for

            Courcy.

                   In September 1965, Courcy was admitted to the Fanny Allen Hospital for several months.

            Courcy was then admitted to the Psychiatric Department of DeGosebriand Hospital.

                   Defendant allowed Courcy to continue to present himself as a priest, celebrate Mass, and

            work with parishioners during this time, despite its own concerns, and the concerns of the

            doctors treating Courcy.

                   In 1966, for unspecified reasons, Courcy was terminated from a parish assignment and

            sent to Via Coeli/Servants of the Paraclete-another well-known treatment facility for priests

            who had sexually abused children.

                      Courcy was told he must remain at this treatment facility indefinitely until the Bishop

            personally authorized Courcy to leave.

                   The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese informed one of the priests at Servants of the

            Paraclete that Courcy should be removed completely from all communication, especially with

            young people.

                      One of Courcy' s doctors acknowledged that Courcy had psychosexual disturbances.

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

[* 2]                                                      2 of 7
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    In 1967, the Bishop of Burlington Diocese acknowledged that Courcy should not be

            counseling students but would consider leave to work outside the diocese. One of the priests at

            the treatment center warned Burlington Diocese that he is not convinced that Courcy could return

            to full ministry.

                    Nevertheless, during this time, Courcy ministered in Santa Fe and El Paso.

                    The Chancellor of Burlington Diocese was informed that the Archbishop of Santa Fe

            advised Courcy to return to Servants of the Paraclete because his work was unsatisfactory.

                    In 1969, Courcy was again admitted to the Servants of the Paraclete. The Bishop of

            Burlington Diocese wrote a letter to Courcy reprimanding him and acknowledging Courcy' s

            psychosocial or psychiatric problems.

                    In 1970, the Bishop of Defendant wrote a letter to one of the priests working at the

            Servants of the Paraclete to see if he knew of any other dioceses wanting to take Servants of the

            Paraclete guests, like Courcy, during their recovery period.

                    In 1971, Defendant sent Courcy to the Archdiocese of Ottawa and informed Burlington

            Diocese parishioners 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 get his degree in

            Religious Education.

                    In 1975, Courcy wrote a letter to the Bishop of Burlington 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 of Burlington Diocese gave the Vice Chancellor of the 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 NEW YORK ET AL                           Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 005

[* 3]                                                     3 of 7
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            Personnel Board of the Diocese of Burlington consistently advised me to allow Father Courcy to

            serve outside the diocese because he can be a source of disturbance within. Every place that he

            has been - and there have been several - the history is the same." The Bishop acknowledged that

            Courcy had proven 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 of Brooklyn that it would be wise to have

            someone check in on Courcy periodically every now and then to take prompt action when

            difficulties arose, advising that Courcy' s past record would support prompt action

                     In the early 1980s, Courcy asked to come back to Burlington Diocese, but the Bishop

            denied these requests and explicitly told Courcy that it was best for him to stay in the Diocese of

            Brooklyn, away from Vermont, based upon the recommendation of the Diocesan Personnel

            Board.

                     The alleged abuse in this case occurred between 1981 and 1984.

                                           PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                     On October 29, 2021, Burlington Diocese brought a Motion to Dismiss for lack of

            personal jurisdiction, which the court (Love, J) denied.

                     On March 13, 2023, Defendant moved to renew its Motion to Dismiss based upon a

            Southern District of New York case applying the 12(b)(2) federal motion to dismiss standard,

            Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 579 F. Supp. 3d 456 (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.

                     Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on September 29, 2023.

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

[* 4]                                                     4 of 7
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                           THE PENDING MOTION

                   On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff moved for an order pursuant to CPLR §2221 seeking to

            renew and vacate the July 31, 2023 order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss.

                    Plaintiffs motion is primarily based on this Court's October 5, 2023 decision in ARK301

            Doe v. Diocese ofBrooklyn et. al., Index No. 512965/2020

                    In that case, this Court granted a motion to reargue Judge Love's dismissal of the action

            against Burlington Diocese and granted plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery. That

            action concerns the same defendant, Burlington Diocese, and arises out of conduct by the same

            perpetrator, Courcy.

                   In granting the motion for reargument in that case, this Court held Justice Love had erred

            in finding that Edwardo was binding precedent, that Eduardo was factually distinguishable from

            the case at bar, and that the underlying decision failed to address the request for jurisdictional

            discovery.

                    In both actions Justice Love was clear he did not agree with the holding in Eduardo:

                   While this Court disagrees with the (Eduardo) holding and would frankly prefer a
                   different outcome as, accepting all of plaintiffs allegations as true, the Diocese of
                   Burlington knew of Courcy' s dangerous propensities and, in its control of Courcy,
                   transferred him to New York, where he did allegedly abuse plaintiff, then the Diocese of
                   Burlington should reasonably expect to be called into court in New York. Justice calls
                   out for the Diocese of Burlington to be subject to discovery and address this matter on the
                   merits rather then short circuiting the process.

                   However, there is no motion pending before this Court for reargument, as there was in

            the related action, rather here Plaintiff seeks 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 NEW YORK ET AL                              Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 005

[* 5]                                                      5 of 7
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    This Court does not find said decision to be a basis for renewal nor can this Court's prior

            decision in the related action reasonably be considered to be a clarification of decisional law.

                    CPLR §2221 is an inappropriate vehicle to vacate a judgment. Maddux v. Schur, 53

            A.D.3d 738, 739 (2008). CPLR §2221(e) is not directed at final orders or judgments.

                    While, CPLR §5015(a)(2) applies to final orders and final judgments in actions,

            Plaintiffs application can not properly be 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 prior motion 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 if an order or judgment is final, a change in the law

            thereafter is of no value to an aggrieved party. 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 plaintiffs motion 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 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 such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the

            procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for

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

[* 6]                                                     6 of 7
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 951179/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 108                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

           Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the

            addresswww.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);].

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    3/19/2024
                      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

             951179/2021 DOE, ARK644 vs. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK ET AL                                Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 005

[* 7]                                                        7 of 7