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