Spotlight on Abuse: St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Mamaroneck

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X JOHN PINCHBECK,

Date Filed: Index No.:

Plaintiff, -against-

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NEW YORK and ST. THOMAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, Defendants.

X Plaintiff, John Pinchbeck (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys Slater Slater Schulman LLP, brings this action against Defendants, the Episcopal Church (“Episcopal Church”), Episcopal Diocese of New York (“Diocese”) and St. Thomas Episcopal Church (“Church”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges, on personal knowledge as to himself and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1.

This action is brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act (“CVA”). See CPLR §

214-g and 22 NYCRR 202.72; the civil action alleges physical, psychological and emotional injuries and damages suffered as a result of conduct against an infant constituting one or more sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Laws, including without limitation, conduct constituting rape (consisting of sexual intercourse) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.25 - 130.35); criminal sexual act (consisting of oral or anal sexual conduct) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.40- 130.53), and/or sexual abuse (consisting of sexual contact) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.55 130.77).

3

3 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

2.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Episcopal Church pursuant to CPLR

§§ 301 and 302, as the Episcopal Church resides in New York and conducts or, at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.

3.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Diocese pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and

302, as the Diocese resides in New York and conducts or, at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.

4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Church pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and

302, as the Church resides in New York and conducts or, at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.

5.

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

is seeking exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

6.

Venue for this action is proper in the County of New York pursuant to CPLR § 503

as one or more Defendants reside in this County.

PARTIES 7.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in Westchester County, New York. Plaintiff was

an infant at the time of the sexual abuse alleged herein and experienced the sexual abuse when he was approximately ten (10) years old.

8.

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

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 is intended for the entity to have engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of the entity’s business affairs.

4

4 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

9.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church was and

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

10.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church was and

remains authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New York.

11.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church maintains a

principal place of business at 815 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

12.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church oversaw and

continues to oversee a variety of liturgical sacramental, educational and faith formation programs.

13.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church had and

continues to have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities.

14.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church, through its

agents, servants, and/or employees had and continues to have control over those activities involving children.

15.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church had and

continues to have the power to employ individuals working with and/or alongside children, providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of the Episcopal Church and Diocese, including but not limited to those at the Church.

16.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and continues to

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

17.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and remains

authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New York.

5

5 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

18.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese maintains a principal

place of business at 1047 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10025.

19.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese oversaw and continues

to oversee a variety of liturgical sacramental, educational and faith formation programs.

20.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to

have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities.

21.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese, through its agents,

servants, and/or employees had and continues to have control over those activities involving children.

22.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to

have the power to employ individuals working with and/or alongside children, providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of the Diocese, including but not limited to those at the Church.

23.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church was and continues to

be a religious New York State non-profit entity.

24.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church maintains its principal

place of business at 168 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York 10543.

25.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church is a parish operating

under the control of the Episcopal Church and Diocese.

26.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church is a parish operating for

the benefit of the Episcopal Church and Diocese.

27.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church had and continues to

have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities.

6

6 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

28.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church, through its agents,

servants, and/or employees had and continues to have control over those activities involving children.

29.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church had and continues to

have the power to employ individuals working with and/or alongside children, providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of the Episcopal Church, Diocese and Church.

30.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Reverend Melon (“Abuser”) was

an agent, servant, and/or employee of the Church.

31.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abuser was an agent, servant,

and/or employee of the Episcopal Church.

32.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abuser was an agent, servant,

and/or employee of the Diocese.

33.

Upon information and belief, at all times material to the Verified Complaint,

Abuser was the head priest in the Church.

34.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Episcopal Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Episcopal Church.

35.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Episcopal Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese.

36.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Episcopal Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Church.

7

7 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

37.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Diocese, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese.

38.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Diocese, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Episcopal Church.

39.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Diocese, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Church.

40.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Church.

41.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Episcopal Church.

42.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while an agent, servant and/or

employee of the Church, Abuser remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese.

43.

The Episcopal Church placed Abuser in positions where he had immediate access

to children.

44.

The Diocese placed Abuser in positions where he had immediate access to children.

45.

The Church placed Abuser in positions where he had immediate access to children.

46.

The Episcopal Church placed Abuser in positions where he had unfettered and

prolonged unsupervised access to children.

47.

The Diocese placed Abuser in positions where he had unfettered and prolonged

unsupervised access to children.

48.

The Church placed Abuser in positions where he had unfettered and prolonged

unsupervised access to children.

8

8 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

BACKGROUND 49.

By tradition, Episcopalians and those within their custody and control, including

Plaintiff, are taught to hold religious figures in the highest esteem as earthly representatives of God, and that religious figures, unlike lay people, belong to a separate and higher state in life, which Defendants represent to be of divine origin and which they represent, entitles them to special privileges. For these and other reasons relating to the practice of the Church, religious figures and other individuals in leadership positions in the Church have traditionally occupied positions of great trust, respect, and allegiance among adults and children, including Plaintiff.

50.

The pattern and practice of intentionally refusing and/or failing to disclose the

identities and locations of sexually inappropriate and/or abusive bishops, priests and/or deacons has been practiced by the Diocese for decades and continues through current day. The failure to disclose the identities of allegedly sexually inappropriate and/or abusive bishops, priests and/or deacons is unreasonable and knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition that endangers the safety and health of members of the public, and more specifically, Plaintiff herein.

51.

Further, Episcopal Church officials, including Defendants herein, have used their

power and influence to prevent victims and their families from disclosing allegations of abuse.

FACTS 52.

Plaintiff was raised in a devout Episcopal family and, in or around the year 1965,

when Plaintiff was approximately about four (4) years old, Plaintiff began attending the Church with his siblings, within and under the auspices of the Diocese.

53.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff participated in church activities at the Church.

54.

Plaintiff received religious instruction from the Church.

55.

Abuser, under the auspices of the Episcopal Church, Diocese and Church, provided

educational and religious instruction to the infant Plaintiff.

9

9 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

56.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

During and through these activities, Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was

dependent on the Episcopal Church and Abuser.

57.

During and through these religious instructional activities, the Episcopal Church

had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff.

58.

During and through these activities, the Episcopal Church had assumed the

responsibility of caring for Plaintiff and had authority over him.

59.

During and through these religious instructional activities, Plaintiff, as a minor and

vulnerable child, was dependent on the Diocese and Abuser.

60.

During and through these activities the Diocese had custody of Plaintiff and

accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff.

61.

During and through these activities, the Diocese had assumed the responsibility of

Plaintiff and authority over him.

62.

During and through these activities, Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was

dependent on the Church and Abuser.

63.

During and through these religious instructional activities, the Church had custody

of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff.

64.

During and through these activities, the Church had assumed the responsibility of

caring for Plaintiff and had authority over him.

65.

Through Abuser’s positions at, within, or for the Episcopal Church, Abuser was put

in direct contact with Plaintiff. It was under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction, contact, and control of Abuser, who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually abuse and harass Plaintiff.

66.

Through Abuser’s positions at, within, or for the Diocese, Abuser was put in direct

contact with Plaintiff. It was under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the 10

10 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

direction, contact, and control of Abuser, who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually abuse and harass Plaintiff.

67.

Through Abuser’s positions at, within, or for the Church, Abuser was put in direct

contact with Plaintiff. It was under these circumstances that Plaintiff came to be under the direction, contact, and control of Abuser, who used his position of authority and trust over Plaintiff to sexually abuse and harass Plaintiff.

68.

On multiple occasions, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abuser, while acting as a priest,

counselor, teacher, trustee, director, officer, employee, agent, servant and/or volunteer of the Defendants herein, sexually assaulted, sexually abused and/or had sexual contact with Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including the New York State Penal Law, Article 130.

69.

Specifically, Abuser’s abuse of the then infant Plaintiff included, but was not

limited to, touching and fondling Plaintiff.

70.

The abuse occurred in approximately 1971 when Plaintiff was approximately ten

(10) years old and continued for approximately one year.

71.

The abuse occurred in the rectory of the Church where the Abuser had his office

and would take place every week when Plaintiff attended Sunday church services.

72.

Plaintiff’s relationship to the Episcopal Church, as a vulnerable minor, parishioner

and participant in Church religious instructional activities, was one in which Plaintiff was subject to the Episcopal Church’s ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Episcopal Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abuser’s sexual abuse of him.

73.

Plaintiff’s relationship to the Diocese, as a vulnerable minor, parishioner and

participant in the Diocese’s religious instructional activities, was one in which Plaintiff was subject

11

11 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

to the Diocese’s ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Episcopal Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abuser’s sexual abuse of him.

74.

Plaintiff’s relationship to the Church, as a vulnerable minor, parishioner and

participant in Church religious instructional activities, was one in which Plaintiff was subject to the Church’s ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Episcopal Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abuser’s sexual abuse of him.

75.

At no time did the Episcopal Church ever send an official, a member of the clergy,

an investigator or any employee or independent contractor to the Church to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students and/or their families, either verbally or in writing that there were credible allegations against Abuser and to request that anyone who saw, suspected or suffered sexual abuse to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the Episcopal Church remained silent.

76.

At no time did the Diocese ever send an official, a member of the clergy, an

investigator or any employee or independent contractor to the Church to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students and/or their families, either verbally or in writing that there were credible allegations against Abuser and to request that anyone who saw, suspected or suffered sexual abuse to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the Diocese remained silent.

77.

At no time did the Church ever send an official, a member of the clergy, an

investigator or any employee or independent contractor to the Church to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students and/or their families, either verbally or in writing that there were credible allegations against Abuser and to request that anyone who saw, suspected or suffered sexual abuse to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the Church remained silent.

12

12 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

78.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

As a result of Defendants’ 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; nightmares, problems sleeping and concentrating; low self-confidence, low self-respect, and low self-esteem; feeling of worthlessness, shamefulness, and embarrassment; feeling alone and isolated; losing faith in God and authority figures; feeling estranged from the church; struggling with alcohol and substance problems and 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; having traumatic flashbacks; and feeling that his childhood and innocence was stolen. Plaintiff was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiff’s normal daily activities; has incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.

As a victim of Defendants’ 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.

79.

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.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE 80.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation set forth above

as if fully set forth herein.

81.

The Episcopal Church knew or was negligent in not knowing that Abuser posed a

threat of sexual abuse to children.

82.

The Diocese knew or was negligent in not knowing that Abuser posed a threat of

sexual abuse to children.

13

13 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

83.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

The Church knew or was negligent in not knowing that Abuser posed a threat of

sexual abuse to children.

84.

The acts of Abuser described hereinabove were undertaken, and/or enabled by,

and/or during the course, and/or within the scope of his employment, appointment, and/or agency with the Episcopal Church.

85.

The acts of Abuser described hereinabove were undertaken, and/or enabled by,

and/or during the course, and/or within the scope of his employment, appointment, and/or agency with the Diocese.

86.

The acts of Abuser described hereinabove were undertaken, and/or enabled by,

and/or during the course, and/or within the scope of his employment, appointment, and/or agency with the Church.

87.

The Episcopal Church’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 at length.

88.

The 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 at length.

89.

The Church’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 at length.

90.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, with regard to the allegations

contained herein, Abuser was under the direct supervision, employ and/or control of the Episcopal Church.

14

14 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

91.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, with regard to the allegations

contained herein, Abuser was under the direct supervision, employ and/or control of the Diocese.

92.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, with regard to the allegations

contained herein, Abuser was under the direct supervision, employ and/or control of the Church.

93.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Episcopal Church’s actions

were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, grossly negligent and outrageous in its disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

94.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese’s actions were willful,

wanton, malicious, reckless, grossly negligent and outrageous in its disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

95.

At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Church’s actions were willful,

wanton, malicious, reckless, grossly negligent and outrageous in its disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

96.

The Episcopal Church owed Plaintiff a duty of care because it had a special

relationship with Plaintiff.

97.

The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of care because it had a special relationship with

Plaintiff.

98.

The Church owed Plaintiff a duty of care because it had a special relationship with

Plaintiff.

99.

The Episcopal Church had a duty arising from the special relationship that existed

with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parent(s) and/or guardian(s), and other parent(s) and/or guardian(s) of young, innocent, vulnerable children in the Episcopal Church to properly train and supervise its clerics, employees and/or agents. This special relationship arose because of the high degree of vulnerability of those children, including Plaintiff, entrusted to its care. As a result of this high 15

15 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

degree of vulnerability and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such a special relationship, the Episcopal Church had a duty to establish measures of protection not necessary for people who are older and better able to protect themselves.

100.

The Diocese had a duty arising from the special relationship that existed with

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parent(s) and/or guardian(s), and other parent(s) and/or guardian(s) of young, innocent, vulnerable children in the Diocese to properly train and supervise its clerics, employees and/or agents. This special relationship arose because of the high degree of vulnerability of those children, including Plaintiff, entrusted to its care. As a result of this high degree of vulnerability and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such a special relationship, the Diocese had a duty to establish measures of protection not necessary for people who are older and better able to protect themselves.

101.

The Church had a duty arising from the special relationship that existed with

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parent(s) and/or guardian(s), and other parent(s) and/or guardian(s) of young, innocent, vulnerable children in the Church to properly train and supervise its clerics, employees and/or agents. This special relationship arose because of the high degree of vulnerability of those children, including Plaintiff, entrusted to its care. As a result of this high degree of vulnerability and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such a special relationship, the Church had a duty to establish measures of protection not necessary for people who are older and better able to protect themselves.

102.

The Episcopal Church owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from Abuser’s

sexual deviancy, both prior to and/or subsequent to Abuser’s misconduct.

103.

The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from Abuser’s sexual

deviancy, both prior to and/or subsequent to Abuser’s misconduct.

16

16 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

104.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

The Church owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from Abuser’s sexual

deviancy, both prior to and/or subsequent to Abuser’s misconduct.

105.

The Episcopal Church owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because it solicited

youth and parent(s) and/or guardian(s) for participation in its youth programs; encouraged youth and parent(s) and/or guardian(s) to have youth participate in its programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted its facilities and programs as being safe for children; held its agents, including Abuser, out as safe to work with children; encouraged parent(s) and/or guardian(s) and children to spend time with its agents; and/or encouraged its agents, including Abuser, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit children.

106.

The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because it solicited youth and

parent(s) and/or guardian(s) for participation in its youth programs; encouraged youth and parent(s) and/or guardian(s) to have youth participate in its programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted its facilities and programs as being safe for children; held its agents, including Abuser, out as safe to work with children; encouraged parent(s) and/or guardian(s) and children to spend time with its agents; and/or encouraged its agents, including Abuser, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit children.

107.

The Church owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because it solicited youth and

parent(s) and/or guardian(s) for participation in its youth programs; encouraged youth and parent(s) and/or guardian(s) to have youth participate in its programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted its facilities and programs as being safe for children; held its agents, including Abuser, out as safe to work with children; encouraged parent(s) and/or guardian(s) and children to spend time with its agents; and/or encouraged its agents, including Abuser, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit children.

17

17 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

108.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

By accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church established an in

loco parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury. Further, the Episcopal Church entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaking the custody, supervision of, and/or care of the infant Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being an infant, and by the Episcopal Church undertaking the care and guidance of Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church also held a position of empowerment over Plaintiff. Further, the Episcopal Church, by holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of empowerment. The Episcopal Church, through its employees and/or agents, exploited this power over Plaintiff and, thereby, put the infant Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse.

109.

By accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff, the Diocese established an in loco

parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury. Further, the Diocese entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaking the custody, supervision of, and/or care of the infant Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being an infant, and by the Diocese undertaking the care and guidance of Plaintiff, the Diocese also held a position of empowerment over Plaintiff. Further, the Diocese, by holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of empowerment. The Diocese, through its employees and/or agents, exploited this power over Plaintiff and, thereby, put the infant Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse.

110.

By accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff, the Church established an in loco

parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury. Further, the Church entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaking the custody, supervision of, and/or care of the infant Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being an infant, and by the Church undertaking the care and guidance of Plaintiff, the Church also held a position 18

18 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

of empowerment over Plaintiff. Further, the Church, by holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of empowerment. The Church, through its employees and/or agents, exploited this power over Plaintiff and, thereby, put the infant Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse.

111.

By establishing and/or operating the Episcopal Church, accepting the infant

Plaintiff as a participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church and/or the Abuser entered into an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Episcopal Church and/or the Abuser had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

112.

By establishing and/or operating the Diocese, accepting the infant Plaintiff as a

participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Diocese and/or the Abuser entered into an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Diocese and/or the Abuser had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

113.

By establishing and/or operating the Church, accepting the infant Plaintiff as a

participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Church and/or the Abuser entered into an express and/or implied 19

19 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Church and/or the Abuser had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

114.

By establishing and/or operating the Episcopal Church, accepting the infant

Plaintiff as a participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church and Diocese entered into an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Episcopal Church and Diocese had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

115.

By establishing and/or operating the Church, accepting the infant Plaintiff as a

participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Church and Diocese entered into an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Church and Diocese had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

116.

By establishing and/or operating the Diocese, accepting the infant Plaintiff as a

participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church and Diocese entered into an express and/or 20

20 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Episcopal Church and Diocese had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

117.

By establishing and/or operating the Diocese, accepting the infant Plaintiff as a

participant in its programs, holding its facilities and programs out to be a safe environment for Plaintiff, accepting custody of the infant Plaintiff in loco parentis, and by establishing a relationship with Plaintiff, the Diocese and/or the Church entered into an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for children, who participated in its programs. The Diocese and/or the Church had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under its control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

118.

The Episcopal Church also breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff

and Plaintiff’s family of the risk that Abuser posed and the risks of child sexual abuse in Episcopal institutions. The Church also failed to warn them about any knowledge it had about sexual abuse.

119.

The Diocese also breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s family of the risk that Abuser posed and the risks of child sexual abuse in Episcopal institutions. The Diocese also failed to warn them about any knowledge it had about sexual abuse.

120.

The Church also breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and

Plaintiff’s family of the risk that Abuser posed and the risks of child sexual abuse in Episcopal institutions. The Church also failed to warn them about any knowledge it had about sexual abuse.

121.

The Episcopal Church additionally violated a legal duty by failing to report to law

enforcement known and/or suspected abuse of children by Abuser and/or its other agents.

21

21 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

122.

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

The Diocese additionally violated a legal duty by failing to report to law

enforcement known and/or suspected abuse of children by Abuser and/or its other agents.

123.

The Church additionally violated a legal duty by failing to report to law

enforcement known and/or suspected abuse of children by Abuser and/or its other agents.

124.

Prior to the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, the Episcopal Church knew or should have

known that Abuser was unfit to work with children. The Episcopal Church, by and through its agents, servants and/or employees knew, or should have known of Abuser’s propensity to commit sexual abuse and of the risk to Plaintiff’s safety. At the very least, the Episcopal Church knew or should have known that it did not have sufficient information about whether or not its leaders and people working at the Church were safe.

125.

Prior to the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, the Diocese knew or should have known that

Abuser was unfit to work with children. The Diocese, by and through its agents, servants and/or employees knew, or should have known of Abuser’s propensity to commit sexual abuse and of the risk to Plaintiff’s safety. At the very least, the Diocese knew or should have known that it did not have sufficient information about whether or not its leaders and people working at the Diocese and other Episcopal institutions within the Diocese, including the Church, were safe.

126.

Prior to the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, the Church knew or should have known that

Abuser was unfit to work with children. The Church, by and through its agents, servants and/or employees knew, or should have known of Abuser’s propensity to commit sexual abuse and of the risk to Plaintiff’s safety. At the very least, the Church knew or should have known that it did not have sufficient information about whether or not its leaders and people working at the Church were safe.

127.

The Episcopal Church’s actions and/or inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm

to Plaintiff. As a vulnerable child participating in the programs and activities the Episcopal Church 22

22 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

offered to minors, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim. Additionally, as a vulnerable child who Abuser had access to through the Episcopal Church’s facilities and programs, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim.

128.

The Diocese’s actions and/or inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm to

Plaintiff. As a vulnerable child participating in the programs and activities the Diocese offered to minors, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim. Additionally, as a vulnerable child who Abuser had access to through the Diocese’s facilities and programs, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim.

129.

The Church’s actions and/or inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm to

Plaintiff. As a vulnerable child participating in the programs and activities the Church offered to minors, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim. Additionally, as a vulnerable child who Abuser had access to through the Church’s facilities and programs, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim.

130.

Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff and were otherwise negligent.

131.

At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendants, and/or Defendants’ agents or

employees, were responsible and/or liable for each other’s negligent actions and/or omissions, via including but not limited to respondeat superior. However, Plaintiff does not allege that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies directly to intentional acts of sexual assault or sexual abuse alleged of the individual perpetrator(s) identified in this complaint.

132.

The limitations of liability set forth in Article 16 of the CPLR do not apply to any

of the causes of action alleged in this Complaint.

133.

As a direct and/or indirect result of said conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries

and damages described herein.

134.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative,

are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages, and for punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

23

23 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, SUPERVISION, AND/OR DIRECTION 135.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference each and every allegation set forth above

as if fully set forth herein.

136.

The Episcopal Church hired Abuser.

137.

The Diocese hired Abuser.

138.

The Church hired Abuser.

139.

The Episcopal Church hired Abuser for a position that required him to work closely

with, mentor, and counsel young boys and girls.

140.

The Diocese hired Abuser for a position that required him to work closely with,

mentor, and counsel young boys and girls.

141.

The Church hired Abuser for a position that required him to work closely with,

mentor, and counsel young boys and girls.

142.

The Episcopal Church was negligent in hiring Abuser because it knew or should

have known, through the exercise of reasonable care, of Abuser’s propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children in its charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

143.

The Diocese was negligent in hiring Abuser because it knew or should have known,

through the exercise of reasonable care, of Abuser’s propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children in its charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

144.

The Church was negligent in hiring Abuser because it knew or should have known,

through the exercise of reasonable care, of Abuser’s propensity to develop inappropriate

24

24 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

relationships with children in its charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

145.

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been hired by the Episcopal Church to mentor and counsel children in the Church.

146.

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been hired by the Diocese to mentor and counsel children in the Church.

147.

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been hired by the Church to mentor and counsel children in the Church.

148.

Abuser continued to molest Plaintiff while a parishioner of the Church.

149.

The harm complained of herein was foreseeable.

150.

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

the negligence of the Episcopal Church in having placed Abuser, and/or allowed Abuser to remain in his position.

151.

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

the negligence of the Diocese in having placed Abuser, and/or allowed Abuser to remain in his position.

152.

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

the negligence of the Church in having placed Abuser, and/or allowed Abuser to remain in his position.

153.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Episcopal Church, he

was supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Episcopal Church and/or its agents and employees.

25

25 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

154.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Diocese, he was

supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Diocese and/or its agents and employees.

155.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Episcopal Church, he

was supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Diocese and/or its agents and employees.

156.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Episcopal Church, he

was supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Church and/or its agents and employees.

157.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Diocese, he was

supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Episcopal Church and/or its agents and employees.

158.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Diocese, he was

supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Church and/or its agents and employees.

159.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Church, he was

supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Episcopal Church and/or its agents and employees.

160.

At all times while Abuser was employed or appointed by the Church, he was

supervised by, under the direction of, and/or answerable to, the Diocese and/or its agents and employees.

161.

The Episcopal Church was negligent in its direction and/or supervision of Abuser

in that it knew or should have known, through the exercise of ordinary care, that Abuser’s conduct would subject third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm, including Abuser’s propensity to 26

26 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

develop inappropriate relationships with children under his charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

162.

The Episcopal Church failed to take steps to prevent such conduct from occurring.

163.

The Diocese was negligent in its direction and/or supervision of Abuser in that it

knew, or should have known, through the exercise of ordinary care, Abuser’s conduct would subject third parties to an unreasonable risk of harm, including Abuser’s propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children under his charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

164.

The Diocese failed to take steps to prevent such conduct from occurring.

165.

The Church was negligent in its direction and/or supervision of Abuser in that it

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

166.

The Church failed to take steps to prevent such conduct from occurring.

167.

The Episcopal Church was negligent in its retention of Abuser in that it knew, or

should have known, through the exercise of reasonable care, of his propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children under his charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

168.

The Episcopal Church retained Abuser in his position as mentor and counselor to

such children and thus left him in a position to continue such behavior.

169.

The Diocese was negligent in its retention of Abuser in that it knew, or should have

known, through the exercise of reasonable care, of his propensity to develop inappropriate

27

27 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

relationships with children under his charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

170.

The Diocese retained Abuser in his position as mentor and counselor to such

children and thus left him in a position to continue such behavior.

171.

The Church was negligent in its retention of Abuser in that it knew, or should have

known, through the exercise of reasonable care, of his propensity to develop inappropriate relationships with children under his charge and to engage in sexual behavior and lewd and lascivious conduct with such children.

172.

The Church retained Abuser in his position as mentor and counselor to such

children and thus left him in a position to continue such behavior.

173.

The Episcopal Church was further negligent in its retention, supervision, and/or

direction of Abuser in that Abuser sexually molested Plaintiff within the geographical confines of the Episcopal Church and/or elsewhere.

174.

The Episcopal Church failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such events from

occurring on its premises and/or elsewhere.

175.

The Diocese was further negligent in its retention, supervision, and/or direction of

Abuser in that Abuser sexually molested Plaintiff within the geographical confines of the Diocese.

176.

The Diocese failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such events from occurring

on its premises and/or elsewhere.

177.

The Church was further negligent in its retention, supervision, and/or direction of

Abuser in that Abuser sexually molested Plaintiff within the geographical confines of the Church and/or elsewhere.

178.

The Church failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such events from occurring

on its premises and/or elsewhere.

28

28 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

179.

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been negligently retained, supervised, and/or directed by the Episcopal Church as a mentor and counselor to the infant parishioners of the Episcopal Church, including Plaintiff.

180.

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been negligently retained, supervised, and/or directed by the Diocese as a mentor and counselor to the infant parishioners of the Diocese, including Plaintiff.

181.

Abuser would not and could not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff

had he not been negligently retained, supervised, and/or directed by the Church as a mentor and counselor to the infant parishioners of the Church, including Plaintiff.

182.

Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiff and were otherwise negligent.

183.

The limitations of liability set forth in Article 16 of the CPLR do not apply to any

of the causes of action alleged in this Complaint.

184.

As a direct and/or indirect result of said conduct, Plaintiff has suffered the injuries

and damages described herein.

185.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants jointly, severally and/or in the alternative,

are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages, and for punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

COUNT III - PREMISES LIABILITY 186.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges by reference every allegation set forth above as if

fully set forth herein.

187.

Defendants were negligent in the use and or maintenance of their property as

alleged hereinabove.

188.

Defendants owned or controlled the property on which Plaintiff was harmed. As

the owner and occupier of the property, Defendants were under a duty to manage and act 29

29 of 33

INDEX NO. 951143/2021

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

reasonably to control their property and guests to prevent injury from amongst other things, foreseeable sexual assault.

189.

Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by permitting Abuser to sexually assault

Plaintiff, a young child, on Defendant’s premises.

190.

As described above, the actions or omissions of Defendants their agents, servants,

or employees were conducted in a negligent, or grossly negligent manner.

191.

Defendants’ actions and/or omissions endangered Plaintiff’s safety and caused her

to fear for her safety.

192.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions or omissions 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.

193.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants are jointly, severally, or in the alternative,

liable to Plaintiff for compensatory damages, together with interest and costs.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant judgment in this action in favor of Plaintiff, and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in a sum of money in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction, together with all applicable interest, costs, disbursements, as well as punitive damages and such other, further and different relief as the Court in its discretion shall deem to be just, proper and equitable.

30

30 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2021 04:59 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1

INDEX NO. 951143/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2021

Plaintiff further places Defendants on notice and reserves the right to interpose claims sounding in Fraudulent Concealment, Deceptive Practices and/or Civil Conspiracy should the facts and discovery materials support such claims.

Dated: New York, New York August 10, 2021

31

31 of 33