Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023
EXHIBIT “A”
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
CAROLINE BORRINO, Index No.: 506296/2020
Plaintiff,
COMMON DEMAND FOR
-against- VERIFIED BILL OF
PARTICULARS DIRECTED
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN and OUR LADY OF AT PLAINTIFF CAROLINE
GUADALUPE CHURCH AND SCHOOL, and SISTERS BORRINO
OF ST. JOSEPH
Defendants. Child Victims Act Proceeding 22
NYCRR 202.72
Plaintiff Caroline Borrino, by and through Plaintiff’s attorneys, the Marsh Law Firm PLLC
and Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC, hereby provides the following in response to the
Common Demand for Verified Bill of Particulars Directed at Plaintiff. These responses by
Plaintiff, including any documents produced by Plaintiff, any authorizations provided by Plaintiff,
and any documents obtained by the defense through the use of such authorizations, are provided
with the express understanding that they are subject to the Court’s confidentiality order. Plaintiff
also reminds the defense of Footnote 1 in the Standard Automatic Disclosures Directed at
Plaintiffs, which states as follows:
In processing authorizations provided by plaintiff during the course of the CVA
litigation, defendants will make best efforts not to disclose the caption of the subject
litigation or the fact that plaintiff is a party to litigation. In the event an
authorization is insufficient to obtain the records sought in this and any subsequent
demands, defendants reserve their rights and will not be precluded from issuing
subpoenas or filing motions for the production of documents from third-parties
pursuant to the CPLR and existing case law.
1
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023
admissible evidence and is not unduly burdensome in light of the fact that Plaintiff's claim plainly
violates the foregoing statutes as they exist today.
5. If Plaintiff claims that any Defendant violated any statute, law, rule, ordinance
or regulation, for each Defendant set forth the specific (including subdivision) statute, law,
rule, ordinance(s), or regulation allegedly violated and the alleged acts or omissions giving
rise to the alleged violation.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this demand because it requests information that is
outside the proper scope of a Bill of Particulars as set forth in CPLR 3043(a) and is evidentiary in
nature. Plaintiff further objects to this demand because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to this demand because it calls for a legal
conclusion. Without waiving said objections:
Per the Court’s case management order Plaintiff has not yet been able to pursue discovery,
so Plaintiff is currently unable to provide a full and fair response to this demand. The failure to
protect Plaintiff from being sexually abused may have violated statutes, laws, rules, ordinances or
regulations, particularly to the extent no effort was made to report the abuse of Plaintiff or other
children to law enforcement or the authorities, and such reporting could have prevented the sexual
abuse of Plaintiff. Plaintiff may supplement this response as the parties engage in discovery.
6. Identify each cause of action and/or theory of liability alleged in the
Complaint, and, for each, separately describe in detail all alleged acts or omissions of each
Defendant (for institutional Defendants, if known, identify the agents, servants, or employees
who allegedly committed the alleged acts or omissions), the date of each act or omission and
the basis for any contention that an alleged act or omission was (a) negligent, (b) grossly
negligent or reckless and/or (c) intentional.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this demand because it requests information that is
outside the proper scope of a Bill of Particulars as set forth in CPLR 3043, is evidentiary in nature,
and calls for a repeat of allegations that are already detailed in the Complaint. Without waiving
said objections:
7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023
Plaintiff believes that Kenneth Pilpel was an agent of the Sisters of St. Joseph, a religious
order.
Dated: July 8, 2021
MARSH LAW FIRM PLLC
By __________________________________
James R. Marsh
jamesmarsh@marsh.law
31 Hudson Yards, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 372-3030
PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
By: _________________________________
Vincent T. Nappo
Anelga Doumanian
vnappo@pcvalaw.com
adoumanian@pcvalaw.com
31 Hudson Yards, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 300-2444
Attorneys for Plaintiff
31
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023
VERIFICATION
statsor NOU) Yoek
countyor KIC h mora
I, Caroline Borrino, am the plaintiff in the above referenced action. I have read the above
Common Demand for Verified Bill of Particulars Directed at Plaintiff Caroline Borrino and
Plaintiff Caroline Borrino’s Responses and Objections Thereto and know its contents. The contents
are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated as being alleged on information
and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct. 4 ,
Caroline Borrino
Sworn before me on
(¢™ day of Tu ly , 2021
+h
On the if day of Su (y 20>/ in the
year 2021, before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Caroline Borrino, personally VANESSA RIZZUTO |
known to me or proved to me on the basis of NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK
satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose No, 01R16371869
Registratio n
name is subscribed to the within instrument and Qualified in Richmond Conny |
acknowledged to me that he or she executed the same Commission Expires March 5,
in his or her capacity, and that by his or her signature
on the instrument, executed the instrument.
Notary Public * =
32
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023 EXHIBIT “A” FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS CAROLINE BORRINO, Index No.: 506296/2020 Plaintiff, COMMON DEMAND FOR -against- VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS DIRECTED DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN and OUR LADY OF AT PLAINTIFF CAROLINE GUADALUPE CHURCH AND SCHOOL, and SISTERS BORRINO OF ST. JOSEPH Defendants. Child Victims Act Proceeding 22 NYCRR 202.72 Plaintiff Caroline Borrino, by and through Plaintiff’s attorneys, the Marsh Law Firm PLLC and Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC, hereby provides the following in response to the Common Demand for Verified Bill of Particulars Directed at Plaintiff. These responses by Plaintiff, including any documents produced by Plaintiff, any authorizations provided by Plaintiff, and any documents obtained by the defense through the use of such authorizations, are provided with the express understanding that they are subject to the Court’s confidentiality order. Plaintiff also reminds the defense of Footnote 1 in the Standard Automatic Disclosures Directed at Plaintiffs, which states as follows: In processing authorizations provided by plaintiff during the course of the CVA litigation, defendants will make best efforts not to disclose the caption of the subject litigation or the fact that plaintiff is a party to litigation. In the event an authorization is insufficient to obtain the records sought in this and any subsequent demands, defendants reserve their rights and will not be precluded from issuing subpoenas or filing motions for the production of documents from third-parties pursuant to the CPLR and existing case law. 1 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023 admissible evidence and is not unduly burdensome in light of the fact that Plaintiff's claim plainly violates the foregoing statutes as they exist today. 5. If Plaintiff claims that any Defendant violated any statute, law, rule, ordinance or regulation, for each Defendant set forth the specific (including subdivision) statute, law, rule, ordinance(s), or regulation allegedly violated and the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the alleged violation. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this demand because it requests information that is outside the proper scope of a Bill of Particulars as set forth in CPLR 3043(a) and is evidentiary in nature. Plaintiff further objects to this demand because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff also objects to this demand because it calls for a legal conclusion. Without waiving said objections: Per the Court’s case management order Plaintiff has not yet been able to pursue discovery, so Plaintiff is currently unable to provide a full and fair response to this demand. The failure to protect Plaintiff from being sexually abused may have violated statutes, laws, rules, ordinances or regulations, particularly to the extent no effort was made to report the abuse of Plaintiff or other children to law enforcement or the authorities, and such reporting could have prevented the sexual abuse of Plaintiff. Plaintiff may supplement this response as the parties engage in discovery. 6. Identify each cause of action and/or theory of liability alleged in the Complaint, and, for each, separately describe in detail all alleged acts or omissions of each Defendant (for institutional Defendants, if known, identify the agents, servants, or employees who allegedly committed the alleged acts or omissions), the date of each act or omission and the basis for any contention that an alleged act or omission was (a) negligent, (b) grossly negligent or reckless and/or (c) intentional. RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this demand because it requests information that is outside the proper scope of a Bill of Particulars as set forth in CPLR 3043, is evidentiary in nature, and calls for a repeat of allegations that are already detailed in the Complaint. Without waiving said objections: 7 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023 Plaintiff believes that Kenneth Pilpel was an agent of the Sisters of St. Joseph, a religious order. Dated: July 8, 2021 MARSH LAW FIRM PLLC By __________________________________ James R. Marsh jamesmarsh@marsh.law 31 Hudson Yards, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 372-3030 PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC By: _________________________________ Vincent T. Nappo Anelga Doumanian vnappo@pcvalaw.com adoumanian@pcvalaw.com 31 Hudson Yards, 11th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 300-2444 Attorneys for Plaintiff 31 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2023 11:59 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 119 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2023 VERIFICATION statsor NOU) Yoek countyor KIC h mora I, Caroline Borrino, am the plaintiff in the above referenced action. I have read the above Common Demand for Verified Bill of Particulars Directed at Plaintiff Caroline Borrino and Plaintiff Caroline Borrino’s Responses and Objections Thereto and know its contents. The contents are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated as being alleged on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 4 , Caroline Borrino Sworn before me on (¢™ day of Tu ly , 2021 +h On the if day of Su (y 20>/ in the year 2021, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Caroline Borrino, personally VANESSA RIZZUTO | known to me or proved to me on the basis of NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose No, 01R16371869 Registratio n name is subscribed to the within instrument and Qualified in Richmond Conny | acknowledged to me that he or she executed the same Commission Expires March 5, in his or her capacity, and that by his or her signature on the instrument, executed the instrument. Notary Public * = 32