Grace Church Abuse Lawsuit

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x Anne Bobst Highley

Index No. Plaintiff designates NEW YORK COUNTY as place of trial.

Plaintiff, The basis of venue is Defendant’s place of business.

- against Summons THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NEW YORK, GRACE CHURCH SCHOOL, GRACE CHURCH, Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------x To the above named Defendant: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Verified Complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your Verified Answer on the undersigned attorneys, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, representing Plaintiff, within twenty (20) days after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York).

Please take notice that this action is based on a tort cause of action, that plaintiff seeks money damages for personal injuries and that incase of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint.

Defendants’ Address: EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NEW YORK 1047 Amsterdam Avenue New York, NY 10025

GRACE CHURCH SCHOOL 86 Fourth Avenue New York, NY

GRACE CHURCH 802 Broadway New York, NY 10003

1

1 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

Dated: New York, New York August 2, 2021

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Respectfully Submitted, HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP ___________________________ MICHAEL ROSE, ESQ. HILLARY M. NAPPI, ESQ. 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10016 212-213-8311 hnappi@hrsclaw.com McSweeney Law Firm Krisel McSweeney, Esq. 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 800-540-0668 (pending Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2

2 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Anne Bobst Highley Index No. Plaintiff, -against-

VERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NEW YORK, GRACE CHURCH SCHOOL, GRACE CHURCH, Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, Anne Bobst Highley, by the undersigned attorneys, complaining of the Defendants Episcopal Diocese of New York, Grace Church School, and Grace Church, in their official and individual capacities, whose identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief and states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1.

This is a revival action brought pursuant to C.P.L.R. §214-g, the New York Child

Victims Act (the “CVA”). The CVA opened a historic one-year one-time window for victims and survivors of childhood sexual abuse in the State of New York to pursue lapsed claims. Prior to the passage of the CVA, each of Plaintiff’s claims were time barred.1 2.

When Anne Bobst Highley, formerly known as Anne DeWees Bobst, was a minor,

she was a student of Grace Church School (the “School”). During her time as a student of the School, she was groomed, molested, and sexually abused by the Headmaster of Grace Church School, Reverend E. Allison Grant, and Assistant Minister Porteous of Grace Church.

The CVA was amended to allow causes of action to be filed up to two years and six months after the effective date of the statute, setting the new deadline to August 14, 2021. C.P.L.R. §214-g.

1

3

3 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

3.

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Headmaster E. Allison Grant committed his heinous acts while in the course of his

duties as employee of Grace Church School under the guidance and control of the Episcopal Diocese of New York and Grace Church School. Assistant Minister Porteous committed his heinous acts while in the course of his duties as employee of Grace Church under the guidance and control of the Episcopal Diocese of New York and Grace Church. Plaintiff’s life was forever changed as a result of the negligent conduct described herein.

4.

As a result of the passage of the CVA, Plaintiff can now pursue restorative justice.

Plaintiff brings suit to vindicate her rights.

PARTIES 5.

Anne Bobst Highley (“Plaintiff”) is an individual residing in Palm Beach County,

Florida. Plaintiff attended Grace Church School from 1948 through 1954.

6.

Upon information and belief and at all relevant times The Episcopal Diocese of

New York (“Diocese”), with its principal headquarter in New York, is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York, located at 1047 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10025. Upon information and belief, the Diocese was established in 1785 and encompasses the boroughs of New York City.

7.

Upon information and belief, Defendant, Grace Church School is at all relevant

times a not-for-profit co-educational independent school doing business in New York County, New York. The School was founded in 1894 and evolved into a college preparatory school for grades kindergarten through eight.

8.

Upon information and belief and at all relevant times, the School was operated by

and otherwise a part of Defendant, Grace Church (the “Church”) and is a school within the Episcopal Diocese of New York. At all relevant times, the School was located at 802 Broadway,

4

4 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

New York, NY 10003.

9.

Upon information and belief, the Church was at all relevant times, a not-for-profit

religious corporation with its principal headquarter in New York, New York, organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the state of New York.

10.

Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, the Church is an Episcopal

church within The Episcopal Diocese of New York. At all relevant times, the School was located at 802 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, hereinafter referred to as the “Premises.”

11.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant, the Diocese employed clergy

and others who served various Episcopalian institutions and individuals including Grace Church School and Grace Church, and thus, Plaintiff.

12.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant, the Church and School

provided offices for the employees on the Premises.

13.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant, Reverend E. Allison Grant

(“Grant”) was a headmaster employed by the Defendants, to serve the School, and thus, the Plaintiff.

14.

Grant is not a party to this action. However, Grant is the individual who committed

the illegal, heinous, and immoral acts described herein which give rise to Plaintiff’s allegations.

15.

At all times relevant hereto, Grant was an agent of Defendants, the Diocese and

School.

16.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant, Porteous was an assistant

minister employed by the Defendant to serve the Church, and thus the Plaintiff.

17.

Porteous is not a party to this action. However, Porteous is the individual who

committed the illegal, heinous, and immoral acts described herein which give rise to Plaintiff’s

5

5 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

allegations.

18.

At all times relevant hereto, Porteous was an agent of Defendants, the Diocese and

the Church.

19.

To the extent that the Defendants are successors to different entities, corporations,

or organizations which existed during the period of time during which Grant and Porteous used their positions to sexually abuse Plaintiff, such predecessor entity, corporation, or organization is hereby on notice that it is intended to be a Defendant in this lawsuit.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to

C.P.L.R. §§ 301 and 302, in that Defendants transact business within the State of New York.

21.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages Plaintiff

seeks exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

22.

Venue for this action is proper in the County of New York pursuant to C.P.L.R.

§503 in that the Defendant transacts business in the County of New York.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 23.

At all times relevant hereto, Grant was on the staff of, acted as an agent of and

served as an employee of Grace Church School.

24.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, the Diocese, its

agents, servants and employees managed, maintained, operated and controlled the School, and thus the Premises.

25.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, the Diocese, its

agents, servants and employees managed, maintained, operated and controlled the Church, and thus the Premises.

6

6 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

26.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, each Defendant held

itself out to the public, its agents, servants, and employees as those who managed, maintained, operated and controlled the Church and School, and thus the Premises.

27.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Defendants were, in

whole or in part, responsible for the hiring and staffing and performed the hiring and staffing at the Church and School.

28.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Defendants materially

benefitted from the operation of the School and Church, including the benefits of the retention of the services of Grant and Porteous and the services of those who managed and supervised Grant and Porteous.

29.

At all relevant times, Defendants held Grant and Porteous out to the public, and to

Plaintiff, as its agent and employee.

30.

At all relevant times, Defendants held Grant and Porteous out to the public, and to

Plaintiff, as having been vetted, screened, and approved as being “safe” by Defendants.

31.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the acts and representations

of Defendants, its agents, servants, and employees and reasonably believed that Grant and Porteous were an agents or employees of Defendants, who were vetted, screened, and approved by Defendants.

32.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Grant and Porteous

were on the staff of, acted as an agent of, and served as employees of Defendants.

33.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Grant, headmaster of

the School, and Porteous, assistant minister of the Church, were acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendants.

7

7 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

34.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Grant, assigned to the

School and Porteous, assigned to the Church, were employed by Defendants.

35.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Grant and Porteous

had private offices on the School and Church Premises.

36.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, Grant and Porteous

were agents of Defendants.

37.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff, and her parents, trusted Grant and Porteous because

Defendants maintained a facade within the larger community that the School and Church were safe and could be trusted with the supervision, care, custody, and control of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Meets Headmaster Grant Who Groomed, Molested and Sexually Abused Her 38.

Plaintiff was born in August 1940. Plaintiff was a student at Grace Church from

1948 to 1954.

39.

At that time, Grant was the Headmaster of Grace Church School, who at times

would lead chantry service. Grant had a private office on the Premises on the main floor of the School.

40.

In or about May of 1950, when Plaintiff was nine years old, she was brought to

Grant’s office to discuss disciplinary issues. She was reprimanded by Grant for dancing ballet in the hallways on her way to class. In hopes that Grant would help her, Plaintiff disclosed to Grant during this meeting that she was being inappropriately touched by her paternal grandfather.

Plaintiff was desperate for help and thought that Grant would help due to his trusted position as Headmaster of the School; however, it was this moment that Grant stared to groom Plaintiff.

41.

Grant told Plaintiff that she could trust him and encouraged her to disclose the

details of her grandfather’s sexual molestation. Plaintiff stated that her grandfather would touch

8

8 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

her inappropriately on her vaginal area while she was in bed while asking her if it felt good.

Plaintiff was embarrassed as she disclosed the incidents to the Headmaster. Grant expressed that her grandfather loved her. He then stated that this was a way that her grandfather showed affection.

He offered to talk to Plaintiff’s grandfather if she wished. This concluded the meeting.

42.

In the next school year, Plaintiff was called to Grant’s office for similar disciplinary

issues in or around November of 1950. Plaintiff passed by Mrs. Godfrey and Mrs. Newman’s desks as she walked to Grant’s office to the left.

43.

While in Grant’s office, he shut the door behind them. After a short conversation,

Grant then placed his hand in her chest pocket located near her breast, he fondled her breast and while advising her not to let boys put their hands in her pocket. As he fondled her breast, he asked Plaintiff if it made her feel good, just like her grandfather. Plaintiff was in shock and confused.

She could not fathom that the Headmaster was touching her inappropriately.

44.

He advised her that people show love in different ways. He then told her, “you need

a little love,” as he pulled down Plaintiff’s bloomers and fondled her vagina and digitally penetrated her vagina. After a few minutes, he instructed Plaintiff to sit on the leather couch located in his office. Grant undid his pant zipper and pulled out his erect penis.

45.

Grant then asked Plaintiff if she liked her Headmaster and asked her to kiss his

penis to make him feel good while he pushed her head down. Plaintiff, as instructed, placed her mouth on his penis while remaining stiff with fear. Grant then said, “[n]ow you know you are loved and appreciated.” During the first sexual assault incident Grant did not ejaculate.

46.

Grant’s sexual abuse continued until Plaintiff graduated the School in 1954

approximately once or twice a week. Grant would often find her in the school hallway and instruct her to go to his office without justification. Plaintiff would remain the Headmaster’s office with

9

9 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

the door closed for fifteen to twenty minutes at a time.

47.

Grant’s sexual abuse escalated to vaginal penetration with his penis and other

objects. Prior to being vaginally penetrated by Grant, Plaintiff was a virgin. Plaintiff recalls Grant applying a gel like substance in her vagina and asking her to sit on his lap while he penetrated her.

Grant would then ejaculate on the leather couch and wipe it clean.

48.

During other instances of sexual abuse Grant painfully penetrated Plaintiff’s vagina

with a candle or a wooden instrument that resembled a small flute. He would also penetrate Plaintiff’s anus with objects after applying a gel like substance. At times, Grant would instruct Plaintiff to penetrate his anus with a candle and her fingers after having her apply a gel like substance. On one occasion, he instructed Plaintiff to light the candle while it was in his still inserted in his anus.

49.

Plaintiff was repeatedly groomed, molested, and sexually assaulted by Grant from

the time she was around ten through fourteen years of age.

50.

At no time during the forced sexual activity described herein could Plaintiff legally

provide consent to engage in these acts with her abuser.

51.

Upon information and belief, Grant behaved in a blatant manner, which should have

caused other employees, clergy, or staff at the School to question his behavior and motivation toward Plaintiff and other minors those employees had a duty to protect.

52.

Upon information and belief, the School relied upon its agents, employees and/or

staff to ensure the safety and maintenance of the Premises.

53.

Upon information and belief, the School did not have any security to protect minors,

like Plaintiff, from harm.

54.

Upon information and belief, the Diocese and School were aware of Grant’s

10

10 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

predilection to engage in sexually inappropriate behaviors with children.

55.

Upon information and belief, staff members ignored and failed to reasonably

respond to Plaintiff’s frequent and prolonged visits to Grant’s office.

56.

At all times, the conduct alleged herein, was not only immoral but violated New

York State’s Penal Code.

57.

As a direct result of the conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional distress, and physical manifestations of emotional distress. Plaintiff was prevented from obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling; and has incurred and will continue to incur loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. As a victim of sexual abuse, Plaintiff is unable at this time to fully describe all of the details of that abuse and the extent of the harm suffered as a result.

Plaintiff Meets Assistant Minister Porteous Who Groomed, Molested and Sexually Abused Her 58.

As a student of the School, Plaintiff attended catechism classes in preparation for

confirmation. Porteous, at the direction of the Rector, Dr. Louis W. Pitts (hereinafter referred to as “Pitts”), performed Plaintiff’s catechism classes, approximately twice a month for catechism classes until May 1951. Porteous’s sexual abuse continued after Plaintiff completed catechism classes. She was sexually abused by Porteous approximately twice a week until 1953.

59.

In or about December 1950, she started catechism classes in the rectory with Pitts

during the school week after school hours. When Pitts could not perform catechism classes, Porteous conducted catechism class starting in or after January 1951. Porteous was an older man from England with white hair of average height with glasses. Porteous would often sit on the altar during chantry service and had church duties as assistant minister.

11

11 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

60.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Plaintiff went to Porteous’s office located in the rectory for catechism classes.

Porteous was always dressed in a priestly garment. During the purported catechism classes, Porteous sexually abused Plaintiff on several occasions. After Plaintiff completed catechism classes, Porteous continued to instruct Plaintiff to go to his office during recess or after school to continue his sexual abuse. As a pretext, he would as her to visit his office to discuss the morning prayers, at times conducted by students, and sermons.

61.

Plaintiff was repeatedly groomed, molested, and sexually abused by Reverend

Porteous from the time she was around eleven through thirteen years of age. Porteous groomed Plaintiff by complimenting her on her physical attributes and assured her she could trust him.

62.

While fondling her, he asked her if it made her feel good, similar to Grant and her

grandfather. He also asked her to fondle his penis to make him happy. His statements were so similar to Grant’s statements that Plaintiff believes Grant and Porteous communicated about her sexual abuse. The sexual abuse consisted of fondling Plaintiff’s genitals and breasts, digitally penetrating Plaintiff’s vagina, and instructing Plaintiff to fondle his genitals after he exposed himself, and vaginal penetration, among other acts of sexual abuse.

63.

At no time during the forced sexual activity described herein could Plaintiff legally

provide consent to engage in these acts with her abuser.

64.

Upon information and belief, Porteous behaved in a blatant manner, which should

have caused other employees, clergy, or staff at the Diocese and Church to question his behavior and motivation toward Plaintiff and other minors those employees had a duty to protect.

65.

Upon information and belief, the Diocese and Church relied upon its agents,

employees and/or staff to ensure the safety and maintenance of the Premises.

66.

Upon information and belief, the Diocese and Church did not have any security to

12

12 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

protect minors, like Plaintiff, from harm.

67.

Upon information and belief, the Diocese and Church were aware of Porteous’s

predilection to engage in sexually inappropriate behaviors with children.

68.

At all times, the conduct alleged herein, was not only immoral but violated New

York State’s Penal Code.

69.

As a direct result of the conduct described herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, severe and permanent emotional distress, and physical manifestations of emotional distress. Plaintiff was prevented from obtaining the full enjoyment of life; has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling; and has incurred and will continue to incur loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. As a victim of sexual abuse, Plaintiff is unable at this time to fully describe all of the details of that abuse and the extent of the harm suffered as a result.

CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE SCHOOL RESULTING IN GRANT’S SEXUAL ABUSE 70.

Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.

71.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School is and was a domestic business

entity, duly authorized to do business in the State of New York.

72.

At all times mentioned herein, the Defendant School is and was a business entity,

duly authorized to do business in the State of New York.

73.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School transacted business within the

State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of New York or engaged in other persistent courses of conduct and rendered services in the State of New York and expected 13

13 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

or should have reasonably expected its acts or omissions to have consequences within the State of New York.

74.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Diocese was the owner and/or lessor of

the land and structures located on the Premises.

75.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School was the lessee of the land and

structures located on the portions of Premises.

76.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School was the managing agent of the

land and structures located on the Premises.

77.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Diocese was the lessor of the land and

structures located on the Premises utilized by Defendant School which were not specifically owned by the School.

78.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School operated the Premises.

79.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School controlled the Premises.

80.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School maintained the Premises.

81.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant School possessed and/or occupied the

Premises.

82.

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises.

83.

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff sustained serious and severe personal

injuries subsequently causing severe emotional harm, after Plaintiff was repeatedly and regularly sexually abused on the Premises.

84.

The above occurrences were caused solely by and through the negligence of the

Defendant School, its agents, servants and/or employees, herein, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

14

14 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

85.

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

Defendant School had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous and

defective.

86.

That Defendant School created the defective and dangerous condition through their

omissions. Defendant had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff, a child, from foreseeable harm when she was under the supervision, care, custody, and control of Grant.

87.

Defendant School also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Grant from

using the tasks, Premises, and instrumentalities of his position as a headmaster with Defendant to target, groom and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff.

88.

Defendant School was supervising Grant and had care, custody, and control of

Plaintiff when she was in the School, during which time the Defendant had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff.

89.

These circumstances created a special relationship between Defendant and the

Plaintiff, which imposed on Defendant School a duty to exercise the degree of care a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances.

90.

Defendant School breached each of the foregoing duties by failing to exercise

reasonable care to prevent Grant from harming Plaintiff, including sexually abusing her.

91.

That Defendant School, and/or its agents, servants, associates and/or employees

were negligent, careless and reckless, in that the School: (a) negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to properly, shore, equip, guard, arrange, operate and conduct activities at the Premises, so as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons therein, and more particularly to the Plaintiff herein; (b) failed and omitted to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place located on the Premises; and (c) failed and omitted to insure that the Premises was kept free of hazardous conditions. Defendant through its actions and inactions created an environment

15

15 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

that placed Plaintiff in danger of unreasonable risks of harm under the circumstances.

92.

It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s breach of these duties of care would

result Plaintiff’s sexual abuse.

93.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, Grant

groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff from 1951 and 1954, Plaintiff was repeatedly sexually abused by Grant and assaulted on the Premises and as a result was severely damaged and suffered emotionally and psychically.

94.

That as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was injured solely and wholly as a result

of the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

95.

Plaintiff’s conscious pain, agony and suffering was due to the negligence of the

Defendant in failing to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons therein, and more particularly to the Plaintiff herein; failed and omitted to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place located on the Premises; failed and omitted to insure that the areas Plaintiff was present on at the aforementioned location was kept free of hazardous conditions; negligently and improperly allowing the Premises to become and remain dangerous, unrestrained, unguarded, and unsupervised thereby creating a dangerous, hazardous condition.

96.

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

damages and punitive damages, together with interests and costs.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE CHURCH RESULTING IN PORTEOUS’S SEXUAL ABUSE 97.

Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.

16

16 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

98.

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church is and was a domestic business

entity, duly authorized to do business in the State of New York.

99.

At all times mentioned herein, the Defendant Church is and was a business entity,

duly authorized to do business in the State of New York.

100.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church transacted business within the

State of New York; regularly did or solicited business within the State of New York or engaged in other persistent courses of conduct and rendered services in the State of New York and expected or should have reasonably expected its acts or omissions to have consequences within the State of New York.

101.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Diocese was the owner and/or lessor of

the land and structures located on the Premises.

102.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church was the lessee of the land and

structures located on the portions of Premises.

103.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church was the managing agent of the

land and structures located on the Premises.

104.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Diocese was the lessor of the land and

structures located on the Premises utilized by Defendant Church which were not specifically owned by the Church.

105.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church operated the Premises.

106.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church controlled the Premises.

107.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Church maintained the Premises.

108.

At all times mentioned herein, Defendants Church and Diocese possessed and/or

occupied the Premises.

17

17 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

109.

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises.

110.

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff sustained serious and severe personal

injuries subsequently causing severe emotional harm, after Plaintiff was repeatedly and regularly sexually abused on the Premises.

111.

The above occurrences were caused solely by and through the negligence of the

Defendant Church, its agents, servants and/or employees, herein, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

112.

Defendant Church had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous and

defective conditions and practices complained of herein.

113.

That Defendant Church created the defective and dangerous condition through their

omissions. Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff, a child, from foreseeable harm when she was under the supervision, care, custody, and control of Porteous.

114.

Defendant Church also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent Porteous from

using the tasks, Premises, and instrumentalities of his position as a priest with Defendants to target, groom and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff.

115.

Defendant Church was supervising Porteous and had care, custody, and control of

Plaintiff when she was in the Church, during which time the Defendant had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff.

116.

These circumstances created a special relationship between Defendant and the

Plaintiff, which imposed on Defendant a duty to exercise the degree of care a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances.

117.

Defendant Church breached each of the foregoing duties by failing to exercise

reasonable care to prevent Porteous from harming Plaintiff, including sexually abusing her.

18

18 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

118.

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

That Defendant Church, and/or its agents, servants, associates and/or employees

were negligent, careless and reckless, in that the School: (a) negligently, carelessly and recklessly, failed and omitted to properly, shore, equip, guard, arrange, operate and conduct activities at the Premises, so as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons therein, and more particularly to the Plaintiff herein; (b) failed and omitted to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place located on the Premises; and (c) failed and omitted to insure that the Premises was kept free of hazardous conditions. Defendant through its actions and inactions created an environment that placed Plaintiff in danger of unreasonable risks of harm under the circumstances.

119.

It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s breach of these duties of care would

result in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

120.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendant, Porteous

groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff from 1952 and 1954, Plaintiff was repeatedly sexually abused by Porteous and assaulted on the Premises and as a result was severely damaged and suffered emotionally and psychically.

121.

That as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was injured solely and wholly as a result

of the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.

122.

Plaintiff’s conscious pain, agony and suffering was due to the negligence of the

Defendant in failing to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons therein, and more particularly to the Plaintiff herein; failed and omitted to provide the Plaintiff with a safe place located on the Premises; failed and omitted to insure that the areas Plaintiff was present on at the aforementioned location was kept free of hazardous conditions; negligently and improperly allowing the Premises to become and remain dangerous, unrestrained, unguarded, and

19

19 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

unsupervised thereby creating a dangerous, hazardous condition.

123.

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

damages and punitive damages, together with interests and costs.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING OF EMPLOYEES AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 124.

Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.

125.

At all times material, Grant and Porteous were employed by the Defendant Diocese

and were under the Defendant Diocese’s direct supervision, employ, and control when they committed the wrongful acts alleged herein. Grant and Porteous engaged in the illegal conduct while acting in the course and scope of their employments with the Defendant and/or accomplished the sexual abuse by virtue of their job-created authority.

126.

Defendant Diocese was negligent in the hiring of Grant and Porteous. Defendant

Diocese negligently hired and/or retained Grant and Porteous and/or placed Grant and Porteous in positions to cause foreseeable harm. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to harm had Defendant taken reasonable care in its investigation and supervision of Grant and Porteous.

127.

Defendant Diocese negligently hired Grant and Porteous and knew or reasonably

should have known of Grant and Porteous’s propensity for this type of behavior, which resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries in this action. Defendant, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of Grant and Porteous’s propensity for child sexual abuse. Defendant was required to make appropriate investigations of Grant and Porteous and failed to do so. Appropriate investigations would have revealed the unsuitability of Grant and Porteous for employment and it

20

20 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

was unreasonable for Defendant Diocese to hire Grant and Porteous in light of the information Defendant Diocese knew or should have known.

128.

As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained physical, emotional, and

psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering. The sexual abuse and resulting injuries to Plaintiff were caused solely and wholly by reason of the negligent failures of Defendant Diocese.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 129.

Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.

130.

At all times material, Grant and Porteous were employed by Defendant Diocese

and were under Defendant Diocese’s supervision, employ, and control when they committed the wrongful acts alleged herein. Grant and Porteous engaged in the wrongful conduct while acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant Diocese and/or accomplished the sexual abuse by virtue of this authority created by their role within the Defendant Diocese’s organization.

131.

Defendant Diocese had a duty, arising from its employment of Grant and Porteous,

to ensure that they did not sexually molest children.

132.

Defendant Diocese was negligent in the training, supervision, and instruction of

Grant and Porteous. Defendant Diocese failed to timely and properly educate, train, supervise, and/or monitor its agents or employees with regard to policies and procedures that should have been followed when sexual abuse of a child is suspected or observed.

133.

Defendant Diocese was additionally negligent in failing to supervise, monitor,

chaperone and/or investigate Grant and Porteous and/or in failing to create, institute, and/or

21

21 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

enforce rules, policies, procedures, and/or regulations to prevent Grant and Porteous’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

134.

Upon information and belief, the abuse complained of herein occurred on

Defendant Church’s property and while Plaintiff was in the custody and control of Diocese, and/or the abuse complained of herein occurred through the use of the Defendant Diocese’s chattels and/or occurred as a result of the Defendant Diocese’s actions.

135.

As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained physical, emotional, and

psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering. The sexual abuse and resulting injuries to Plaintiff were caused solely and wholly by reason of the negligent failures of Defendant Diocese in the training and/or supervising of its employees.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES AGAINST DEFENDANT DIOCESE 136.

Plaintiff incorporates all consistent paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth

under this count.

137.

At all times material, Grant and Porteous were employed by Defendant Diocese

and were under Defendant’s direct supervision, employ, and control when he committed the wrongful acts alleged herein.

138.

Defendant Diocese negligently retained Grant and Porteous and knew or should

have known of their propensity for the type of behavior, which resulted in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff and resulting injuries. Defendant failed to investigate Grant and Porteous’s past and/or current history of sexual abuse and, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of Grant and Porteous’s propensity for child sexual abuse. Defendant should have made an appropriate investigation of Grant and Porteous and failed to do so. An appropriate investigation

22

22 of 25

INDEX NO. 950919/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

would have revealed the unsuitability of Grant and Porteous for continued employment and it was unreasonable for Defendant Diocese to retain Grant and Porteous in light of the information it knew or should have known.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, demands judgment against Defendants on each cause of action as follows: A. Awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be provided at trial, but in any event in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction; extent permitted by law; B. Awarding punitive damages to the extent permitted by law; C. Awarding costs and fees of this action, including attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law; D. Awarding prejudgment interest to the extent permitted by law; E. Awarding such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: New York, New York August 2, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP __________________ MICHAEL ROSE, ESQ. HILLARY M. NAPPI, ESQ. 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212)213-8311 HNAPPI@HRSCLAW.COM

McSweeney Law Firm Krisel McSweeney, Esq. 23

23 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 800-540-0668 (pending Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff

24

24 of 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/05/2021 12:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 950919/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/05/2021

ATTORNEY VERIFICATION

HILLARY NAPPI, an attorney duly admitted and licensed to practice law in the courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms, pursuant to C.P.L.R. ¶ 2106, states under the penalty of perjury, as follows: I am an associate at Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, attorneys for the Plaintiff herein, and as such, fully familiar with all the facts and circumstances heretofore stated herein by reason of a file maintained in our office located at 112 Madison Avenue, 10th floor, New York, New York 10016; I have read the foregoing Complaint, and the same is true to our own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and, as to those matters, we believe them to be true; and that this verification is being made by us because the Plaintiff does not reside within New York County wherein our office is located.

August 2 Dated: ___________ ___, 2021 New York, New York

____________________________________

25

25 of 25