Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
_______________________________________________________________Ç
JANE DOE,
VERIFIED ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ON
BEHALF OF THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
FR. BONY MONASTERE, ST. THERESE OF LISIEUX
R.C. CHURCH, DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, and HOLY
FAMILY-ST. LAURENCE R.C. PARISH,
INDEX NO 521695/2023
Defendants.
___________________________________________________Ç
Defendant The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York s/h/a Diocese of Brooklyn
(hereinafter the defendant "Diocese") by its attorneys PEKNIC, PEKNIC & SCHAEFER, PLLC,
as and for its Verified Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint respectfully alleges as follows:
The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in the opening paragraph of the
Amended Complaint in the form alleged, denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of Plaintiff's alleged assault or the employment of Father Bony Monastere
("Fr. Monastere"), except admits that Fr. Monastere was a Roman Catholic priest for a period of
time and was removed from ministry in 2023.
"PARTIES"
1. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the abuse of plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.
2. The defendant Diocese objects to paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint as vague
and overbroad, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, and
refers all questions of law to the Court.
1 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
3. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the
Amended Complaint, except admits that the defendant Diocese is a Religious Corporation duly
organized and under the laws of the State of New York, that the defendant Diocese is
existing
located in the State of New York, and that the principal offices of the defendant Diocese
currently
are currently located at 310 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, New York 11215.
4. The defendant Diocese objects to paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint as vague
and overbroad, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, and
refers all questions of law to the Court.
5. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the
Amended Complaint.
6. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the
Amended Complaint, except admits upon information and belief that the defendant Parish of Holy
Family-Saint Laurence s/h/a Holy Family-St. Laurence R.C. Parish (hereinafter referred to as
defendant "Parish") is currently located in the State of New York and that the principal offices of
the defendant Parish are currently located at 9719 Flatlands Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11236.
7. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the
Amended Complaint.
"JURISDICTION"
8. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the
Amended Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of as to allegations of unlawful conduct as contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended
Complaint, admits that the principal place of business of defendant Parish is located in Kings
County, New York, and refers questions of law to the Court.
9. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the
2 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
Amended Complaint.
10. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the
Amended Complaint.
11. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the
Amended Complaint.
12. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the
Amended Complaint except admits upon information and belief that Fr. Monastere was employed
by a predecessor parish of defendant Holy Family-St. Laurence for a period which included 2014.
13. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the
Amended Complaint.
14. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the
Amended Complaint except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of as to whether, when or how plaintiff came into contact with Fr. Monastere as contained in
paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint.
15. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the
Amended Complaint except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of as to whether, when or how plaintiff came into contact with Fr. Monastere as contained in
paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint.
16. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint.
17. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint.
18. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint.
3 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
19. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint.
20. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
21. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint.
22. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint.
23. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint.
24. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or inforrnation sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint.
25. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the
Amended Complaint and refers all questions of law to the Court.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
26. In response to paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese
repeats and realleges each and every response contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 hereof as if
fully set forth herein.
27. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the
Amended Complaint.
28. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the
Amended Complaint.
29. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the
4 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
Amended Complaint.
30. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the
Amended Complaint.
31. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the
Amended Complaint.
32. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the
Amended Complaint.
33. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the
Amended Complaint.
34. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the
Amended Complaint.
35. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the
Amended Complaint.
36. The defendant Diocese objects to the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the
Amended Complaint as vague and overbroad and denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36
of the Amended Complaint.
37. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the
Amended Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court.
38. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the
Amended Complaint.
39. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the
Amended Complaint.
40. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the
Amended Complaint.
5 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
41. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the
Amended Complaint in the form alleged.
42. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the
Amended Complaint.
43. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the
Amended Complaint.
44. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES
45. In response to paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese
repeats and realleges each and every response contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 hereof as if
fully set forth herein.
46. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the
Amended Complaint.
47. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the
Amended Complaint.
48. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the
Amended Complaint.
49. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the
Amended Complaint.
50. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the
Amended Complaint.
51. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
6 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, and refers
all questions of law to the Court.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENT RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES
52. In response to paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese
repeats and realleges each and response contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 hereof as if
every
fully set forth herein.
53. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the
Amended Complaint.
54. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the
Amended Complaint.
55. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the
Amended Complaint.
56. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the
Amended Complaint.
57. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the
Amended Complaint.
58. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the
Amended Complaint and refers all questions of law to the Court.
TRIAL"
"PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR A JURY
59. The defendant Diocese admits that the plaintiff's Amended Complaint demands a
trial by jury, however said demand is premature under the CPLR and this the defendant Diocese
reserves its rights under CPLR §4102 to consent or refuse a jury trial until the appropriate stage of
the litigation.
7 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
60. In further response to the plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese
asserts the affirmative and other defenses, without conceding that it bears the
hereby following
burden of persuasion as to any of them except those deemed affirmative defenses by law,
regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Nor does the defendant Diocese admit
that the Plaintiff is relieved of his or her burden to prove each and every element of his or her
claims and damages, if any, to which he or she claims to be entitled. As for its defenses, the
defendant Diocese reasserts and reincorporates as if fully set forth herein its responses, above, to
the Amended Complaint.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
61. The plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action, fails to set forth
facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant Diocese
and further fails to state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought, or to any other
relief whatsoever from the defendant Diocese.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
62. The plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to set
forth facts sufficiently detailed so as to "give the Court and parties notice of the transactions,
occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material
defense."
elements of each cause of action or See CPLR §3013.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
63. The plaintiff is barred from seeking all or part of the damages sought in this lawsuit
as a result of the plaintiff's failure to mitigate the damages allegedly sustained,
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
64. If is found as against the defendant Diocese, then said liability will
any liability
constitute 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable and, as a consequence
thereof, the of said defendant to the plaintiff for non-economic loss shall not exceed said
liability
defendant's equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person
causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss, as provided in CPLR Article
16.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
65. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for economic loss as against the
defendant Diocese by reason of the matters alleged in the Amended Complaint, liability for which
is hereby denied, then pursuant to CPLR §4545 the amount of damages recoverable against said
defendant, if any, shall be reduced by the amount by which such economic loss was or will be
replaced or indemnified from any collateral source of payment.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
66. The plaintiff's damages, if any, were sustained as a result of unforeseeable,
intervening causes that were out of the control of the defendant Diocese, and not as a result of said
defendant's alleged conduct, acts or omissions. By virtue of said intervening causes, the plaintiff's
damages were not proximately caused by the defendant Diocese and, therefore, the claim against
said defendant should be dismissed.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
67. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were not caused by
any negligence, carelessness, culpable conduct or breach of duty on the part of the defendant
Diocese, but were caused by reason of the carelessness, negligence, culpable conduct, or breach
of duty of third parties, and their servants, agents or employees, over whom the defendant Diocese
exercised no control, and the defendant Diocese expressly reserves the right to seek
9 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
indemnification for any liability incurred.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
68. In the event of any verdict or judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant
Diocese is entitled to a set-off credit with respect to the amounts of any payment made to the
plaintiff for any companion actions arising out of the same set of events as pleaded herein pursuant
to GOL §l5-108.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
69. If the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused or due
to the actions or omissions of the defendant Diocese, it's agent(s), servant(s), and/or employee(s).
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
70. It is alleged in the Amended Complaint that the damages sustained by the plaintiff
were the result of the acts of the defendants. In the event it is determined that such acts did occur
and were undertaken by an employee of the defendant Diocese, then the defendant Diocese asserts
that such acts were outside the scope of the authority and employment of such employee and
performed for a purpose foreign to any employment with the defendant Diocese, and were not
ratified or consented to by the defendant Diocese.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
71. It is alleged in the Amended Complaint that the damages sustained by the plaintiff
were the result of the acts of the defendants. In the event that it is determined that such acts did
occur and were undertaken by an employee of the defendant Diocese, then the defendant Diocese
asserts that it did not have notice or awareness of any propensity on the part of employee to
any
commit such acts as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 of 15
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023
72. The defendant Diocese's adoption of and compliance with the religious and
canonical customs, norms and usages of the Roman Catholic Church and its compliance with and
it's determinations made under Canon Law are protected by the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and Article I, §§3 and 11 of the Constitution of the State of New
York.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
73. This action pursuant to the Adult Survivor's Act and CPLR §214-j is
unconstitutional facially and as applied to revive claims previously dismissed as time-barred in
violation of the due proces
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS _______________________________________________________________Ç JANE DOE, VERIFIED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED Plaintiff, COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK FR. BONY MONASTERE, ST. THERESE OF LISIEUX R.C. CHURCH, DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, and HOLY FAMILY-ST. LAURENCE R.C. PARISH, INDEX NO 521695/2023 Defendants. ___________________________________________________Ç Defendant The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York s/h/a Diocese of Brooklyn (hereinafter the defendant "Diocese") by its attorneys PEKNIC, PEKNIC & SCHAEFER, PLLC, as and for its Verified Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint respectfully alleges as follows: The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in the opening paragraph of the Amended Complaint in the form alleged, denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiff's alleged assault or the employment of Father Bony Monastere ("Fr. Monastere"), except admits that Fr. Monastere was a Roman Catholic priest for a period of time and was removed from ministry in 2023. "PARTIES" 1. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the abuse of plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. 2. The defendant Diocese objects to paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint as vague and overbroad, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court. 1 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 3. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, except admits that the defendant Diocese is a Religious Corporation duly organized and under the laws of the State of New York, that the defendant Diocese is existing located in the State of New York, and that the principal offices of the defendant Diocese currently are currently located at 310 Prospect Park West, Brooklyn, New York 11215. 4. The defendant Diocese objects to paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint as vague and overbroad, denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court. 5. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint, except admits upon information and belief that the defendant Parish of Holy Family-Saint Laurence s/h/a Holy Family-St. Laurence R.C. Parish (hereinafter referred to as defendant "Parish") is currently located in the State of New York and that the principal offices of the defendant Parish are currently located at 9719 Flatlands Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11236. 7. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. "JURISDICTION" 8. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of as to allegations of unlawful conduct as contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, admits that the principal place of business of defendant Parish is located in Kings County, New York, and refers questions of law to the Court. 9. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the 2 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 Amended Complaint. 10. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 11. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint. 12. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint except admits upon information and belief that Fr. Monastere was employed by a predecessor parish of defendant Holy Family-St. Laurence for a period which included 2014. 13. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. 14. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of as to whether, when or how plaintiff came into contact with Fr. Monastere as contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint. 15. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of as to whether, when or how plaintiff came into contact with Fr. Monastere as contained in paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint. 16. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint. 17. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint. 18. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint. 3 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 19. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint. 20. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint. 21. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint. 22. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. 23. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint. 24. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or inforrnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint. 25. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint and refers all questions of law to the Court. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 26. In response to paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese repeats and realleges each and every response contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 hereof as if fully set forth herein. 27. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint. 28. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint. 29. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the 4 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 Amended Complaint. 30. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint. 31. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint. 32. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint. 33. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint. 34. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint. 35. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint. 36. The defendant Diocese objects to the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint as vague and overbroad and denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint. 37. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court. 38. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint. 39. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint. 40. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint. 5 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 41. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint in the form alleged. 42. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint. 43. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint. 44. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES 45. In response to paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese repeats and realleges each and every response contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 hereof as if fully set forth herein. 46. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint. 47. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint. 48. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint. 49. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint. 50. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint. 51. The defendant Diocese denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 6 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, and refers all questions of law to the Court. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES 52. In response to paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese repeats and realleges each and response contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 hereof as if every fully set forth herein. 53. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint. 54. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint. 55. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint. 56. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint. 57. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint. 58. The defendant Diocese denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint and refers all questions of law to the Court. TRIAL" "PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND FOR A JURY 59. The defendant Diocese admits that the plaintiff's Amended Complaint demands a trial by jury, however said demand is premature under the CPLR and this the defendant Diocese reserves its rights under CPLR §4102 to consent or refuse a jury trial until the appropriate stage of the litigation. 7 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES 60. In further response to the plaintiff's Amended Complaint, the defendant Diocese asserts the affirmative and other defenses, without conceding that it bears the hereby following burden of persuasion as to any of them except those deemed affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Nor does the defendant Diocese admit that the Plaintiff is relieved of his or her burden to prove each and every element of his or her claims and damages, if any, to which he or she claims to be entitled. As for its defenses, the defendant Diocese reasserts and reincorporates as if fully set forth herein its responses, above, to the Amended Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 61. The plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action, fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant Diocese and further fails to state facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought, or to any other relief whatsoever from the defendant Diocese. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 62. The plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and each cause of action thereof, fails to set forth facts sufficiently detailed so as to "give the Court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material defense." elements of each cause of action or See CPLR §3013. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 63. The plaintiff is barred from seeking all or part of the damages sought in this lawsuit as a result of the plaintiff's failure to mitigate the damages allegedly sustained, FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 64. If is found as against the defendant Diocese, then said liability will any liability constitute 50% or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable and, as a consequence thereof, the of said defendant to the plaintiff for non-economic loss shall not exceed said liability defendant's equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss, as provided in CPLR Article 16. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 65. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for economic loss as against the defendant Diocese by reason of the matters alleged in the Amended Complaint, liability for which is hereby denied, then pursuant to CPLR §4545 the amount of damages recoverable against said defendant, if any, shall be reduced by the amount by which such economic loss was or will be replaced or indemnified from any collateral source of payment. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 66. The plaintiff's damages, if any, were sustained as a result of unforeseeable, intervening causes that were out of the control of the defendant Diocese, and not as a result of said defendant's alleged conduct, acts or omissions. By virtue of said intervening causes, the plaintiff's damages were not proximately caused by the defendant Diocese and, therefore, the claim against said defendant should be dismissed. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 67. The injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were not caused by any negligence, carelessness, culpable conduct or breach of duty on the part of the defendant Diocese, but were caused by reason of the carelessness, negligence, culpable conduct, or breach of duty of third parties, and their servants, agents or employees, over whom the defendant Diocese exercised no control, and the defendant Diocese expressly reserves the right to seek 9 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 indemnification for any liability incurred. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 68. In the event of any verdict or judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant Diocese is entitled to a set-off credit with respect to the amounts of any payment made to the plaintiff for any companion actions arising out of the same set of events as pleaded herein pursuant to GOL §l5-108. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 69. If the plaintiff was abused in the manner alleged, such abuse was not caused or due to the actions or omissions of the defendant Diocese, it's agent(s), servant(s), and/or employee(s). TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 70. It is alleged in the Amended Complaint that the damages sustained by the plaintiff were the result of the acts of the defendants. In the event it is determined that such acts did occur and were undertaken by an employee of the defendant Diocese, then the defendant Diocese asserts that such acts were outside the scope of the authority and employment of such employee and performed for a purpose foreign to any employment with the defendant Diocese, and were not ratified or consented to by the defendant Diocese. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 71. It is alleged in the Amended Complaint that the damages sustained by the plaintiff were the result of the acts of the defendants. In the event that it is determined that such acts did occur and were undertaken by an employee of the defendant Diocese, then the defendant Diocese asserts that it did not have notice or awareness of any propensity on the part of employee to any commit such acts as alleged in the Amended Complaint. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 of 15 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/22/2023 03:30 PM INDEX NO. 521695/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2023 72. The defendant Diocese's adoption of and compliance with the religious and canonical customs, norms and usages of the Roman Catholic Church and its compliance with and it's determinations made under Canon Law are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, §§3 and 11 of the Constitution of the State of New York. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 73. This action pursuant to the Adult Survivor's Act and CPLR §214-j is unconstitutional facially and as applied to revive claims previously dismissed as time-barred in violation of the due proces