Spotlight on Abuse: St. Paul's Episcopal Church, College Point

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ------------------------------------------------------------------X W.E.,

Index No.

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

-against-

THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND, Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff W.E.

by and through his attorneys, Levy Konigsberg LLP, brings

this action against The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island

,

and alleges the following: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.

This complaint is filed pursuant to the Child Victims Act ( CVA ), CPLR 214-g,

and 22 NYCRR 202.72, because it pertains to intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury suffered as a result of child sexual abuse.

2.

In approximately 1967, at the approximate age of sixteen (16) years old, Plaintiff

W.E. was hailed down by the priest leading the

of College Point

while passing by the church.

3.

During this meeting, Plaintiff was invited into

ch of

College Point and asked by the priest to assist him with chores.

4.

This sequence of events would mark the beginning of a traumatic five (5) to six

(6) month period of repeated and coerced sexual abuse endured by Plaintiff at the hands of the priest leading

of College Point.

3 3 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

5.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

The priest, as an employee and/or agent Episcopal priest of Defendant Diocese,

was tasked with overseeing the guidance, counseling, education, and caretaking of all people, including minor children, who visited or attended Defendant Diocese

religious houses of

worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and/or programs. Instead, the priest used the power of his position, gained through his employment and/or agency under Defendant Diocese, to repeatedly sexually abuse Plaintiff.

6.

The priest took advantage of his position as an Episcopal priest to create

opportunities to manipulate, isolate, seclude, and sexually abuse Plaintiff.

7.

The emotional and psychological trauma associated with the sexual abuse

Plaintiff endured has caused him significant anguish and distress that he will be forced to live with the rest of his life. Plaintiff has previously and continues to experience deep anger, depression, loss of identity, humiliation, and shame due to the abuse he endured.

8.

As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff asserts state law claims for

negligence; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

9.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries he has

action.

PARTIES 10.

Whenever reference is made to any defendant entity, such reference includes that

entity, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors. In addition, whenever reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of any entity, the allegation means that the entity engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors,

4 4 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

agents, employees, or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management,

A. Plaintiff 11.

At all times relevant to the wrongful conduct complained of herein, Plaintiff was

a resident of the State of New York.

12.

Plaintiff is currently a resident of Suffolk County, New York, and was born in

13.

Plaintiff was a minor at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein.

14.

He has suffered damages in the State of New York.

15.

Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the allegations herein, Plaintiff wishes to

1951.

be identified by his initials, W.E., in this proceeding.

B. Defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island 16.

At all relevant times, defendant The Episcopal Diocese of Long Island was and

continues to be a non-profit religious organization, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

17.

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese is a non-profit religious organization

licensed to and doing business in the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 36 Cathedral Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530.

18.

Defendant Diocese oversees a variety of liturgical, sacramental, educational, and

faith formation programs.

5 5 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

19.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Defendant Diocese has a variety of guidance, wellness, and educational

initiatives held in its churches throughout the New York State counties of Kings, Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk. Defendant Diocese oversees these churches and programs.

20.

Defendant Diocese offers and controls various programs which seek out the

participation, enrollment, and control of children in its churches and programs.

21.

Defendant Diocese, through its agents, servants, and/or employees, has control

over those church initiatives and programs involving children.

22.

Defendant Diocese has the power to employ or retain individuals working with

and/or alongside and/or engaging with children, providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of Defendant Diocese.

C. Relevant Non-P 23.

24.

, was a non-profit religious organization, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

24.

At all relevant times,

entity included, but was not limited to, non-profit

civil corporations, decision making entities, officials, and employees, authorized to conduct business and doing business out of 13-21 College Point Blvd, Flushing, NY 11356.

25.

At all relevant times, St. Paul was a non-profit Episcopal church operating under

the control and/or for the benefit of Defendant Diocese.

26.

Originally founded in 1836, St. Paul permanently closed its doors between

approximately 2014 and 2017. Defendant Diocese then sold the church property in 2017. 1

1

Maya Kaufman, College Point Church Put Up For Sale For $5.5 Million, The Patch, September 25, 2019, https://patch.com/new-york/flushing-murray-hill/college-point-church-put-sale-5-5-million

6 6 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

27.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

At all relevant times, St. Paul employed individuals within its facilities and

programs who provided guidance, counseling, and caretaking services to minors.

28.

At all relevant times, St. Paul had the power to employ, train, supervise, and

terminate these individuals working with, alongside, engaging with, or assisting minors within its facilities and/or programs.

29.

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese oversaw, managed, controlled, directed,

and/or operated St. Paul.

30.

At all relevant times, St. Paul was under the direct authority, control, and/or

operated for the benefit of Defendant Diocese.

D. Relevant Non-Party: Episcopal Priest Doe 31.

38.

Upon information and belief, the priest leading the

Church of College Point

Episcopal Priest Doe

was an Episcopal priest employed and/or

retained as an agent by Defendant Diocese during, approximately, at least 1967. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the full identity, living status, or address of Episcopal Priest Doe. The undersigned anticipates that Episcopal Priest Doe

full identity will come to light in the course

of discovery.

32.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe was an employee and/or agent of

Defendant Diocese.

33.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe remained under the control and

supervision of Defendant Diocese.

34.

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese placed Episcopal Priest Doe in

positions to provide guidance, counseling, and caretaking services to minors, including Plaintiff.

7 7 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

35.

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese placed Episcopal Priest Doe in

positions where he had immediate access to children, including Plaintiff.

36.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe acted and operated for the benefit of

Defendant Diocese.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 37.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Diocese pursuant to CPLR

§§ 301 and 302 in that Defendant Diocese has principal executive offices in New York and that Defendant Diocese 38.

.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount of

damages Plaintiff seeks exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.

39.

Venue for this action is proper in Queens County pursuant to CPLR § 503 in that

county.

NATURE OF CONDUCT ALLEGED 40.

This action alleges physical, psychological and emotional injuries suffered as a

result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense on a minor as defined in article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including without limitation statutory rape, criminal sexual acts (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.40 130.53) and/or sexual abuse (consisting of sexual contact) (N.Y Penal Law §§ 130.55 130.77).

41.

The limitation of liability set forth in CPLR article 16 is not applicable to the

claim of personal injury alleged herein by reason of one or more of the exemptions provided in CPLR § 1602, including without limitation, that defendants acted with reckless disregard for the

8 8 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

safety of others, including Plaintiff, and/or knowingly and/or intentionally in concert with Episcopal Priest Doe, to retain Episcopal Priest Doe with unfettered access to children.

FACTS A. Episcopal Priest Doe Coerced Plaintiff into Engaging in Months of Sexual Abuse on the Grounds of St. Paul.

42.

Plaintiff was born in September of the year 1951.

43.

Plaintiff grew up with his family in Queens County, New York until

approximately the age of ten (10) years old.

44.

In approximately 1961, due to unforeseen

early life,

Plaintiff was sent to live and be in the care of the Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York foster home in Wading River, New York 45.

.

Though unable to permanently

remained statically domiciled in the College Point neighborhood of Queens County, New York Little Flower.

46.

Throughout that aforementioned tenure, Plaintiff and his minor siblings, who

were separately placed in the foster care system, were allowed to visit and stay with their father in Queens County twice a year for one (1) to two (2) weeks at a time. Those visitation periods usually occurred once during the summer months and once around the Christmas holiday.

47.

In approximately 1967, when Plaintiff was approximately sixteen (16) years old,

Plaintiff partook in his annual summer visitation with his father in Queens County. This visitation period was to last two (2) weeks.

48.

Upon this visitation, Plaintiff scheduled to see his girlfriend, who also lived in

the College Point neighborhood of Queens County, New York. Plaintiff would walk straight across town to visit her.

9 9 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

49.

50.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

route stood St.

of College Point.

treks, a man dressed as a priest standing outside of St.

Paul hailed down Plaintiff and attempted conversing with him.

51.

background and tenure at Little Flower, Plaintiff held a great

amount of respect and reverence for clergy members, regardless of their denomination.

52.

Accordingly, Plaintiff stopped his trip to talk to the man dressed as a priest.

53.

After a couple of minutes of friendly conversation, the man dressed as a priest

asked Plaintiff to come inside of St. Paul to assist him with chores, to which Plaintiff agreed.

54. approximately five (5) to seven (7) month long string of sexually abusive events suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of the man dressed as a priest, Episcopal Priest Doe. 55.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe was an employee and/or agent of

Defendant Diocese, assigned to the position of Episcopal priest.

56.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe was under the direct supervision,

employ, and/or control of Defendant Diocese.

57.

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese placed Episcopal Priest Doe into

integral and sensitive positions as his responsibilities focused on the guidance, counseling, education, and care of minor children in Defendant Diocese

religious houses of worship,

facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs.

58.

By employing and/or granting agency to Episcopal Priest Doe, Defendant

Diocese implicitly and explicitly represented to minor children and their families, including y, that Episcopal Priest Doe did not pose a threat to children. A representation these families did in fact rely on.

10 10 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

59.

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Defendant Diocese authorized and allowed their Episcopal priests, including

Episcopal Priest Doe, unfettered and unsupervised access to minor children who were members of, volunteered at, or visited religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs belonging to Defendant Diocese, including St. Paul.

60.

Upon entering St. Paul, Episcopal Priest Doe asked Plaintiff to help him put

away boxes on elevated shelves, for which Episcopal Priest Doe had already set a stepladder up for.

61.

After a couple of minutes of Plaintiff putting away boxes while on the

stepladder, Episcopal Priest Doe started to put his hands on

, as if

he was supporting Plaintiff, eventually raising his hands to 62.

As Epis

the course of

Episcopal Priest Doe conversation became erotic.

63. leading to Episcopal Priest Doe grabbing and squeez his hands 64.

before sliding

.

Plaintiff, extremely uncomfortable, immediately stepped off the stepladder upon sexually aggressive actions. Once off the ladder, Episcopal Priest Doe

began attempting to calm Plaintiff down

65.

to calm down

further, placing Plaintiff in the prie

then brought Plaintiff a

glass of water and knelt down beside Plaintiff.

66.

11 11 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

genitals 67.

on Plaintiff.

Once the act was finished, Episcopal Priest Doe threatened Plaintiff that if he , that

neighborhood what happened.

68.

Terrified, Plaintiff visited Episcopal Priest Doe the next week at St Paul and was

abused in the exact same manner.

69.

Though Plaintiff returned to Little Flower shortly thereafter the second incident back full custody and control of Plaintiff several weeks later.

This meant Plaintiff was permanently back to living in College Point.

70.

Plaintiff would run into Episcopal Priest Doe around the neighborhood within a

short time of his permanent return home. During this meeting, Episcopal Priest Doe again coerced

71.

Thereafter, Plaintiff endured the same pattern and acts of sexual abuse at the

hands of Episcopal Priest Doe another three (3) to four (4) times over the span of an additional two (2) to three (3) months.

72.

Episcopal Priest Doe, who lived in the building next to St. Paul, would schedule abuse like appointments, alw

tell if Plaintiff did not

show up. Plaintiff would either meet Episcopal Priest Doe in his home next to St. Paul or inside St. Paul before Episcopal Priest Doe would abuse Plaintiff inside the church.

73.

After a couple of weeks of this abuse, Plaintiff could not take it anymore and abuse appointments.

74.

As Episcopal Priest Doe never followed through with his threats, Plaintiff never

12 12 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

saw the priest again and did everything in his power to avoid him and St. Paul from thereon.

75.

At no point during the period of sexual abuse did Plaintiff consent to the abuse.

76.

At no point during the period of sexual abuse did Plaintiff have the capacity to

consent to the abuse.

77.

Plaintiff has suffered from this trauma and anguish throughout his entire life and

will continue to do so.

78.

Episcopal Priest Doe abused his position of trust and power as an Episcopal

priest entrusted with the guidance, counseling, education, and caretaking of children.

79.

Defendant Diocese knew and/or reasonably should have known, and/or

knowingly condoned, and/or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Episcopal Priest Doe, who sexually abused Plaintiff.

80.

Defendant Diocese negligently or recklessly believed that Episcopal Priest Doe

was fit to work with children, that he would not sexually abuse children, and that he would not injure children, or condoned his sexual abuse of children.

81.

Defendant Diocese had the responsibility to supervise and/or direct individuals

employed and/or granted agency in their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs, and specifically had a duty to not aid pedophiles, such as Episcopal Priest Doe, by assigning, maintaining, and/or appointing them to positions with access to minors.

82.

Defendant Diocese owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff as a child visitor

on and invited into their premises by the religious leader of the premises, who was employed by and/or granted agency by and/or assigned to the premises by Defendant Diocese.

83.

Defendant Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because Defendant

13 13 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Diocese had superior knowledge about the risk that Episcopal Priest Doe posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs, and/or the risks that its religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs posed to minor children.

84.

Defendant Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they

solicited youth and parents for participation in their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs; encouraged youth and parents to have the youth participate in their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs; undertook the guidance, counseling, education, and/or caretaking of minor children; promoted their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs out as being safe for children; held their agents

including Episcopal Priest Doe

out

as safe to work with children; encouraged parents and children to spend time with their agents; and/or encouraged their agents, including Episcopal Priest Doe, to spend time with, counsel, and/or interact with children in their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs.

85.

Defendant Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect Plaintiff

from foreseeable harm because Defendant Diocese s actions and inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.

86.

Defendant Diocese s breach of duties include, but are not limited to: failure to

have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse; failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse; failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working; failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse;

14 14 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse; failure to properly train the employees and/or agents at their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs; failure to protect children in their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs from child sexual abuse; failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety; failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders, and people as safe; failure to train their agents and/or employees to properly identify signs of child molestation by fellow agents and/or employees.

87.

By employing Episcopal Priest Doe or granting Episcopal Priest Doe agency

within their religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs, Defendant Diocese affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that Episcopal Priest Doe did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of abusing children, and that Defendant Diocese did not know that Episcopal Priest Doe was a danger to children.

88.

At a minimum, any reasonable and prudent employer and/or organization would

have conducted a thorough investigation of Episcopal Priest Doe. Upon information and belief, Defendant Diocese never took any action with respect to Episcopal Priest Doe s sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

89.

A sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) year old child lacks the capacity to consent to

See N.Y. Soc. Servs. Law § 413(1)(a).

90.

At no point in time did any employee, agent, or affiliated worker of Defendant

Diocese attempt to investigate or stop the sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

91.

In failing their duty, Episcopal Priest Doe was allowed to continue cultivating his

15 15 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

predatory and abusive behaviors throughout St. Paul and Defendant Diocese s religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs.

92.

Episcopal Priest Doe s sexual assaults caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme and

severe emotional distress.

93.

Plaintiff began to feel extremely depressed, anxious, angry, embarrassed, and

mortified following the abuse he endured.

94.

Plaintiff developed anxiety, depression, and long-term emotional issues as a

result of the abuse.

95.

Plaintiff has engaged in therapy as a result of the sexual abuse he endured at a

young age.

96.

As a result of Defendant Diocese

conduct described herein, Plaintiff has and

will continue to suffer personal, physical, and psychological injuries, including, but not limited to, great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, problems sleeping, concentrating, low self-confidence, low self-respect, low self-esteem, feeling of worthlessness, feeling shameful, and embarrassed, feeling alone and isolated, losing faith in God, losing faith in authority figures, feeling estranged from the church, struggling with alcohol and substance abuse, struggling with gainful employment and career advancement, feeling helpless, and hopeless, problems with sexual intimacy, relationship problems, trust issues, feeling confused and angry, depression, anxiety, feeling dirty, used, and damaged, suicidal ideations, having traumatic flashbacks, nightmares, and feeling that his childhood and innocence was stolen. Plaintiff was prevented and will

expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. As a victim of

16 16 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Defendant Diocese

misconduct, Plaintiff is unable at this time to fully describe all the details

of that abuse and the extent of the harm Plaintiff suffered as a result.

97.

The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff are specific in kind to Plaintiff,

special, peculiar, and above and beyond those injuries and damages suffered by the public.

CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 98.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous

allegation above as if fully stated in this Count.

99.

Defendant Diocese knew or should have known, or was negligent in not

knowing, that Episcopal Priest Doe posed a threat of sexual abuse to children generally and to Plaintiff specifically.

100.

Defendant Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect Plaintiff

from Episcopal Priest Doe s sexual deviancy as a minor visitor on its grounds, both prior to and/or subsequent to Episcopal Priest Doe s misconduct.

101.

Defendant Diocese s willful, wanton, grossly negligent and/or negligent act(s) of

commission and/or omission resulted directly and/or proximately in the damages set forth herein.

102.

At all times relevant hereto, with regard to the allegations contained herein,

Episcopal Priest Doe was under the direct supervision, employ, and/or control of Defendant Diocese.

103.

Furthermore, through the position from which Episcopal Priest Doe was assigned

by Defendant Diocese, Episcopal Priest Doe was placed in direct contact with Plaintiff.

17 17 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

104.

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Episcopal Priest Doe was assigned to provide guidance, counseling, education,

and caretaking services to children he came into contact with during his employment and/or agency under Defendant Diocese, including Plaintiff.

105.

It was under these circumstances that Plaintiff, as a visitor on the grounds of St.

Paul's Episcopal Church, College Point, was entrusted to the care of Defendant Diocese, and under their authority - came to be under the direction, control, and dominance of Episcopal Priest Doe. 106.

As a result, Episcopal Priest Doe used his position to sexually abuse and harass

Plaintiff.

107.

There existed a fiduciary relationship of trust, confidence, and reliance between

Plaintiff and Defendant Diocese.

108.

Pursuant to its fiduciary relationship, Defendant Diocese was entrusted with the

reasonable care and safety of Plaintiff.

109.

Pursuant to its fiduciary relationship, Defendant Diocese assumed a duty to act in

the best interests of Plaintiff.

110.

Defendant Diocese breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff.

111.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Diocese

actions and/or inactions were

willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, grossly negligent, and outrageous in its disregard for

112.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, discomfort, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. He was prevented, and will continue to be

18 18 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. He has incurred expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

113.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Diocese is liable to Plaintiff for

compensatory damages and for punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

COUNT II: NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 114.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous

allegation above as if fully stated in this Count.

115.

At all material times while children, including Plaintiff, are participating on the

grounds of Defendant Diocese

religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer

activities, and programs, they are in the charge of, and in the physical custody and control of Defendant Diocese. As a result, well-established New York law makes clear that Defendant Diocese has a special relationship with the children they serve.

116.

At all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe was an employee and/or agent of

Defendant Diocese. Therefore, Defendant Diocese and Episcopal Priest Doe were in an employer employee type relationship.

117.

Episcopal Priest Doe was given regular, direct, ongoing, and one-on-one access

to Plaintiff and other children during the course and scope of his employment and/or agency when Defendant Diocese knew or should have known that Episcopal Priest Doe presented an unreasonable risk of harm to minor children, including Plaintiff.

118.

As their employee and/or agent, at all relevant times, Episcopal Priest Doe was

under the direct supervision, management, agency, and control of Defendant Diocese.

19 19 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

119.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

At all relevant times, Defendant Diocese had a duty to supervise Episcopal Priest

Doe, to investigate reports of inappropriate behavior on his part, and to, where appropriate, discipline him.

120.

Indeed, under New York law, Defendant Diocese had a duty to anticipate

foreseeable threats to children s safety while they are in the charge of Defendant Diocese religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs.

121.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Diocese did not conduct any

investigation into Episcopal Priest Doe s sexually abusive behaviors.

122.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Diocese did not affect any punishment

reasonably calculated to curtail Episcopal Priest Doe s sexually abusive behaviors.

123.

Upon information and belief, even a cursory investigation would have given

Defendant Diocese clear and unambiguous notice that it needed to terminate Episcopal Priest Doe and immediately notify the appropriate authorities.

124.

By permitting Episcopal Priest Doe to hold the position of an Episcopal priest,

Defendant Diocese represented to the community that Episcopal Priest Doe was safe, trustworthy, and of high moral and ethical repute, such that parents and guardians felt they could entrust their children to Episcopal Priest Doe and Defendant Diocese s charge.

125.

Implicitly and explicitly, Defendant Diocese held out that Episcopal Priest Doe

was not a sexual threat to children.

126.

Likewise, Defendant Diocese held its employees, agents, facilities, schools,

volunteer activities, and/or programs out as safe for children. Implicitly and explicitly, Defendant Diocese represented that children were not at risk of being sexually abused while

20 20 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

participating in Defendant Diocese s religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs.

127.

Children under Defendant Diocese

, and their parents, relied on the

belief that the Defendant would exercise reasonable care, as would a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances, when they assumed supervision, care, custody, and control of a child.

128.

That implicit and explicit representation would continually be shown as false.

129.

Upon information and belief, Episcopal Priest Doe sexually abused numerous

other children while employed and/or acting as an agent under Defendant Diocese.

130.

Doe

Defendant Diocese therefore knew or should have known of Episcopal Priest ies for the sexually

, concurrently

with his sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

131.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Diocese never suspended, warned,

terminated, banned from their facilities, or otherwise disciplined Episcopal Priest Doe. 132.

Therefore, Defendant Diocese failed to supervise Episcopal Priest Doe and failed

to terminate his employment after he sexually abused children, including Plaintiff.

133.

Therefore, Defendant Diocese failed to: (i) take reasonable steps to supervise

Episcopal Priest Doe; (ii) terminate or dismiss Episcopal Priest Doe; (iii) train the staff and volunteers of Defendant Diocese s religious houses of worship, facilities, schools, volunteer activities, and programs to recognize and prevent child sexual abuse; (iv) create a safe environment; and (v) report Episcopal Priest Doe s sexual abuse to the proper authorities.

134.

It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant Diocese that their failure to

reasonably supervise and/or negligently hire and/or retain Episcopal Priest Doe would result in

21 21 of 26

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 400002/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

sexual abuse and severe harm to children under their care or to children coming in contact with Episcopal Priest Doe in Defendant

religious houses of worship, facilities, schools,

volunteer activities, and/or programs.

135.

Plaintiff would not have suffered the foreseeable harm complained of herein but

for the negligence of Defendant Diocese having placed Episcopal Priest Doe in his position, and/or allowed Episcopal Priest Doe to remain in his position.

136.

Defendant Diocese was negligent in their direction, supervision, and/or retention

of Episcopal Priest Doe in that they knew, or should have known, through the exercise of ordinary care, that Episcopal Priest Doe s conduct would subject third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm, including Episcopal Priest Doe s propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

137.

Defendant Diocese failed to take steps to prevent and/or stop such conduct from

occurring.

138.

Episcopal Priest Doe s sexually abusive conduct to Plaintiff constitutes sexual

offenses as defined under New York Penal Code article 130.

139.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, discomfort, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. He was prevented, and will continue to be prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. He has incurred expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

22 22 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

140.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Diocese is liable to Plaintiff for

compensatory damages and for punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

COUNT III: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 141.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous

allegation above as if fully stated in this Count.

142.

As set forth at length herein, the actions of Defendant Diocese, its predecessors

and/or successors, agents, servants and/or employees, were conducted in a negligent and/or grossly negligent manner.

143.

Defendant Diocese s actions endangered Plaintiff's safety and caused him to fear

for his own safety.

144.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Diocese s actions, which included,

but were not limited to, negligent and/or grossly negligent conduct, Plaintiff suffered the severe injuries and damages described herein, including, but not limited to, mental and emotional distress.

145.

This distress was caused by Episcopal Priest Doe s sexual abuse of Plaintiff and

through the negligent and/or grossly negligent actions and/or inactions of Defendant Diocese.

146.

At the time Episcopal Priest Doe sexually abused Plaintiff, Episcopal Priest Doe

was employed as and/or was an agent Episcopal priest who approached Plaintiff under the confines of his position, all under the guise of Defendant Diocese.

147.

It was part of Episcopal Priest Doe s role as an Episcopal priest to gain Episcopal Priest Doe used his position, and the representations made by

Defendant Diocese about his character that accompanied that and confidence and to create opportunities to violate Plaintiff.

23 23 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

148.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Indeed, by placing Episcopal Priest Doe in a position of power wherein he could

meet children and work in a close proximity to them, Defendant Diocese acted in a negligent and/or grossly negligent manner.

149.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has

suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, discomfort, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. He was prevented, and will continue to be prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. He has incurred expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

150.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Diocese is liable to Plaintiff for

compensatory damages and for punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

JURY DEMAND 151.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Pursuant to § 4 of the

New York Child Victims Act, Plaintiff is entitled to a trial preference.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Diocese on all of his Causes of Action in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts, together fees and the costs and disbursements of this action, as well as any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

24 24 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

Dated: New York, New York January 11, 2021

LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP s/ Tal Z. Stanecky Tal Z. Stanecky 800 Third Ave., 11th Fl. New York, NY 10022 T: (212) 605-6200 F: (212) 605-6290 tstanecky@levylaw.com

25 25 of 26

INDEX NO. 400002/2021

FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2021 09:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2021

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

) :ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

I, Tal Z. Stanecky, the undersigned, am an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State, and say that: I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiff.

I have read the annexed SUMMONS and VERIFIED COMPLAINT and I know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge, except those matters therein, which are stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

My belief, as to those matters therein not stated upon knowledge is based upon the following: Memoranda of interviews and/or discussions with Plaintiff and papers and/or documents in the file.

The reason I make this affirmation instead of Plaintiff is because said Plaintiff resides outside the county from where your deponent maintains his office for the practice of law.

Dated: New York, New York January 11, 2021 LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP s/ Tal Z. Stanecky Tal Z. Stanecky 800 Third Ave., 11th Fl. New York, NY 10022 T: (212) 605-6200 F: (212) 605-6290

26 26 of 26