Preview
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
RICHARD MCPHILLIPS,
SUMMONS
Plaintiff,
Index No.:
vs.
Plaintiff designates the of
OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY County
OF MIDDLETOWN INC.
ORANGE as the place of trial. The basis
N.Y.,
of venue is the Defendant's county of
residence pursuant to CPLR §503.
Defendant.
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to ãñswer the complaint in this action and to serve
a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
DATED: New York, New York
July 21, 2021
PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP
/s/Michael DeRuve
By: Diane Paolicelli
dpaolicelli@p2Iaw.com
Michael DeRuve
mderuve@p2Iaw.com
747 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor
New York, New York 10017
212-388-5100
and
{00053299} 1
Filedin Orange County 07/21/2021 12:49:35 PM $0.00 Bk: 1 of
5145 16 Pg: 1980 Index: # EF005120-2021 Clerk:EBR
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
Michael Cooney
Pro hac vice
Cooney & Conway
mcooney@ cooney conway.com
120 N Lasalle Street, Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312-814-0110
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TO:
OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY OF MIDDLETOWN N.Y., INC.
90 Euclid Ave.,
Middletown, NY 10940
{00053299} 2
2 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
RICHARD MCPHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPLAINT
Index No.:
OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY
OF MIDDLETOWN N.Y., INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff RICHARD MCPHILLIPS, by and through his undersigned attorneys, as and for
his Complaint, alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This action is brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act, codified at CPLR 214-g.
2. Plaintiff Richard McPhillips was sexually abused and assaulted by AI Petak, a
Scoutmaster in Troop 61 based in Middletown, NY. This Troop was a mcmber of the Boy Scouts
of America (hereinafter "BSOA") and was a member of the Hudson Valley Council. Al Petak was
hired, retained, supervised, placed, directed and otherwise authorized to act by Defendant Our
Lady of Mount Carmel Society of Middletown, N.Y., Inc (hcreiñafter "Our Lady of Mount
Carmel").
3. Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. and the
Theodore Roosevelt Council, Boy Scouts of America for the same abuse as set forth herein. See
Index No. 900089/2020.
4. Plaintiff's abuser, Al Petak, (herein "Petak"), was a scout leader of Boy Scout
{00063729} 1
3 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
troops within the Hudson Valley Council, including Troop 61. This Troop's Chartered
Organization was Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
5. Defendant negligently and recklessly selected, accepted, and/or retained Petak, and
permitted him to have unfettered and unsupervised access to children, including Plaintiff, at Boy
Scout events and camps.
6. Plaintiff was about 15 years old at the time he was sexually abused. Upon
information and belief, Defendant failed to perform an appropriate background check of Petak
prior to selecting, accepting, and/or retaining him, failed to supervise Petak and minor scouts in
his presence, failed to identify and report inappropriate and/or suspicious behaviors by Petak, and
otherwise ignored signs that Petak was a potential danger to minor scouts, was engaging in acts to
groom minor scouts, and/or was engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with minor scouts during
Boy Scout events, at Boy Scout camps, and elsewhere.
7. Perversion Files that are publicly available demonstrate the Defendant knew that
Boy Scout leaders in the Orange County, New York area were accused of child sex abuse, credibly
identified as abusers, and/or arrested for sexually abusing minors from the 1960s to 1970s, prior
abuse.¹
to Plaintiff's
8. Further, other CVA complaints against the Defendant allege similar allegations of
Defendant' abuse.2
grooming and sexual abuse at events and camps prior to Plaintiff's
9. Defendant knew or should have known that Petak presented a serious risk of harm
to minor scouts, including Plaintiff.
I
See e.g.Pat Strine, https://www.crewjanci.com/files/1107.pdf; Matthew Malone, 1971
https://documents.latimes.com/matthew-malone/; Thomas Wayne Bradford, 1969,
https://documents.latimes.com/thomas-wayne-bradford/;
2 Coats v.The Bovs Scouts of
See e.g.Scott Gregory America. etal.,Index No. E2020-0067; Daniel Davis v.
Longhouse Council, Inc.,BSOA, et al.,
Index No. 003094/2020; Timothy Tuttle v. Longhouse Council. Inc.BSOA,
Index No. 003095/2020.
{00063729} 2
4 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
10. Notwithstanding this knowledge, and the fiduciary duty and relationship of trust
owed to parents and their children, Defendant negligently, recklessly, and willfully failed to protect
Plaintiff from sexual abuse by Petak, permitted the abuse to occur, failed to supervise Petak and
minor children like Plaintiff in his presence, failed to timely investigate Petak's misconduct, failed
to report Petak's misconduct, failed to have in place appropriate policies and procedures to prevent
sexual abuse of minors, failed to train minor scouts and/or scout leaders to identify and report
inappropriate and/or suspicious behavior, failed to warn minor scouts and parents of prior sexual
abuse by Scout Leaders of minor scouts, and are otherwise responsible for Petak's sexual assault
of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's consequential injuries and damages.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Ulster County, New York.
12. Plaintiff was born in 1957.
13. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel Society of Middletown, N.Y., ("Our Lady
of Mount Carmel") was and stillis a Roman Catholic Church, organized pursuant to the laws of
the State of New York and located at 90 Euclid Ave. Middletown, NY, 10940.
14. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel owned, operated,
controlled, and/or supervised Boy Scout programs, including Boy Scout events, in and around the
Hudson Valley Council territory.
15. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel collectively and
individually hired, employed, accepted, approved, retained, managed, oversaw, controlled and
directed personnel, such as Scout Leaders, to perform functions that required them to interact with
children at Boy Scout events and/or camps in and around the Hudson Valley Council territory.
{00063729} 3
5 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Article VI of
the New York Constitution.
17. Personal jurisdiction lies over Defendant as they are present and domiciled in the
State of New York.
18. Venue of this action lies in Orange County and a substalitial part of the events or
ornission giving rise to the claim occurred in Orange County and the Defendant resides in Orange
County.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
19. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
20. In approximately 1973 Plaintiff was a Boy Scout in Troup 61, a member of the Hudson
Valley Council.
21. At all relevant times, Petak was a Scout Master employed by the Hudson Valley
Council, the BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
22. At all relevant times, Petak was under the direct supervision, employ, and control
of Hudson Valley Council, BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel.
23. By assigning Petak to this role, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church gave
Petak complete access to minors, including Plaintiff, and empowered him to exercise complete
authority over minors.
24. Petak's duties and responsibilities included supervising, interacting with, and
mentoring minor boys who were Boy Scouts in Troop 61.
25. In the performance of itsduties, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel
{00063729} 4
6 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
authorized Petak to be alone with minor boys, includhg Plaintiff, and to have unfettered and
üñsupervised access to them on Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trips.
26. Defendant allowed and encouraged young boys, like Plaintiff, to be along with
Petak during Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trips and other events, and to obey
his instructions.
27. Petak sexually assaulted Plaintiff in approximately 1973 when Plaintiff was
approximately 15 years old.
28. The acts of sexual abuse coinniitted by Petak included, but were not limited to
grabbing Plaintiff's genitals and manually stimulating Plaintiff's penis, and inserting his fingers
inside of Plaintiff's anus.
29. The acts of sexual abuse comniitted by Petak occurred in a hotel room in
Binghamton, NY on an Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trip.
30. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew or should have known that
Petak was a danger to minor boys like Plaintiff before he abused Plaintiff
sexually
31. Upon information and belief, Hudson Valley Council, BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady
of Mount Carmel were not only aware of sexual abuse of children, but they participated in
perpetuating and later covering up Al Petak's heinous acts.
32. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care
because they had superior knowledge about the risks their facilities and activities posed to minor
children, the risk of abuse in general, and the risks that Petak posed to Plaintiff.
33. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Petak was foreseeable and/or wanton and reckless.
34. Since at least 1947, BSOA kept an internal system called the "Ineligible Volunteer
File" Files,"
(herein "I.V. files"), referred to also as the "Perversion which red flagged and
{00063729} 5
7 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
identified scout leaders and other participants for misconduct: most commonly for allegations of
sexual abuse of minors.
35. Perversion Files, which are publicly available, demonstrate BSOA, Hudson Valley
Council, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew that Boy Scout leaders in Orange
County, NY and the surrounding areas were accused, credibly found, and/or arrested for sexually
1970s.3
abusing minors from the 1960s to early
36. Upon information and belief, BSOA and Hudson Valley Council did not remove
abusers in their Perversion Files even after being accused of sexual abuse, protected abusers, did
not report them to the authorities, did not warn parents or minor scouts of these abusers, forced
abusers to resign in exchange for not reporting them, and/or, worse, allowed them to return as Boy
Scout leaders.
37. Each scouting group within BSOA is overseen by a Chartered Organization. The
Chartered Organization representative holds a key position in Scouting and provides leadership,
needed."
meeting facilities, encouragement, and other support as
38. The Chartered Organization representative has important roles. As the head of the
scouting department of the organization, itis responsible for the success of itsscouting units, and
participates in the Local Council as a voting member.
39. The Chartered Organization representative is responsible for recruiting adult
volunteers to provide leadership to each scouting unit within the organization.
3 Matthew 1971
See e.g.Pat Strine, https://www.crewjanci.com/files/1107agl_f; Malone,
https://documents.latimes.com/matthew-malone/; Thomas Wayne Bradford, 1969,
https://documents.latimes.com/thomas-wayne-bradford/;
{00063729} 6
8 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
40. The Chartered Organization leadership has the responsibility to recruit adult leader
for the scout units. This includes a responsibility to recruit adult volunteers who will act
appropriately and not pose a risk to children.
41. The Chartered Organization has total authority to hire adult participants in its
scouting program. The Chartered Organization has total authority to supervise the conduct of the
adult volunteers, to implement safety policies to direct their conduct and to remove them from its
scouting programs for any safety concerns.
42. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel was the Chartered Organization for Troop
61, of which Plaintiff and Petak were members.
43. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew or should have
known that Petak was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the minors
entrusted to his counsel, care and/or protection.
44. With such actual or constructive knowledge, the Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel
provided Petak unfettered access to Plaintiff and gave him the opportüñity to commit foreseeable
acts of child sexual abuse or assault.
45. Defendant owed Plaintiff a reasonable duty of care because they affinnatively
solicited children and parents to send their children to Troop 61 to become Boy Scouts; they
undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; they promoted their facilities and
programs as being safe for children, they held out their agents, including Petak as safe to work
with and around minor boys, they encouraged parents and children to spend time with their agents;
and/or authorized their agents, including Petak, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit
children.
46. Defendant owed Plaintiff a heightened, fidüciary duty of care because they held
{00063729} 7
9 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
themselves out as being able to provide a safe and secure envirerement for children, including
Plaintiff; Plaintiff's parents entrusted Plaintiff to Defendant's care, and expected that Plaintiff
would be safe and properly supervised in an environment free from harm and abuse; Plaintiff was
a vulnerable minor, and üñable to protect himself; and Defendant affirmatively assüñied a position
of empowerment over Plaintiff.
47. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous conduct, beyond all
possible bounds of decency, atrocious and intolerable in a civilized world.
48. Defendant's aforesaid negligent, grossly negligent and reckless misconduct,
endangered Plaintiff's safety and caused him to fear for his own safety.
49. Defendãñt knew or disregarded the substantial probability that Petak
would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.
50. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a vulnerable child entrusted to Defendant's care,
and was under the supervision and control of Defendãñt, such that Defendant owed him a duty to
act in loco parentis and to prevent foreseeable injuries.
51 By reason of the foregoing, Defendant breached itsduties to act in loco parentis.
52. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great
physical and mental pain and anguish, severe and permanent emotional distress, psychological
injuries, fear and anxiety; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his
normal daily activities; was and will continue to be deprived of the enjoyment of life's pleasures;
has suffered and continues to suffer loss of spirituality; has suffered and will continue to suffer
loss of earnings and eaming capacity; has incurred and will in the future incur expenses for medical
and psychological treatment, and was otherwise damaged in an amount that exceeds the
jurisdictional limits of lower courts in this State.
{00063729} 8
10 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
53. To the extent that Defendant pleads, or otherwise seeks to rely upon Article 16 of
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to have fault apportioned to another
Defendant'
allegedly culpable party, Plaintiff expressly states that conduct falls within one or
more of the subdivisions of CPLR 1602.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT HIRING. RETENTION. SUPERVISON. AND DIRECTION
54. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
set forth herein.
55. At all relevant times Defendant had a duty to exercise due care in hiring,
appointing, assigning, retention, supervision and direction of Petak, so as to protect minor children,
incIndhg Plaintiff, who were likely to come into contact with him, and/or under his influence or
supervision, and to ensure that Petak did not use this assigned position to injure minors by sexual
assault, contact or abuse.
56. Defendãñt was negligent and failed to use reasonable care in hiring, appointing,
assigning, and retention, of Petak, failed to properly investigate his background and employment
history, and/or hired, appointed and/or assigned him to Troop 61, when Defendant knew or should
have known of facts that would make him a danger to children; and Defendant was otherwise
negligent.
57. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their supervision and
direction of Petak, failed to monitor his activities, failed to oversee the rñãñüer in which he carried
out the duties to which Defendant assigned him, even though they knew or should have known
that Petak posed a threat of sexual abuse to minors; allowed the misconduct described above to
{00063729} 9
11 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
occur and continue; failed to investigate Petak's dangerous activities and remove him from their
premises; and Defendant was otherwise negligent.
58. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their training, if any,
of minors about the risk of sexual abuse in their facilities, to identify signs of sexual abuse,
groomhg behaviors, and sexual predators, and to report suspicions that a minor was abused,
maltreated, groomed, and/or otherwise sexually abused.
59. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their training, if any,
of adult staff about the risk of sexual abuse in their facilities, to identify signs of sexual abuse,
grooming behaviors, and sexual predators, and their statutory duty to report suspicions that a minor
was abused, maltreated, groomed, and/or otherwise sexually abused.
60. Petak would not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff had
Defendant not been negligent in the hiring, retention, supervision, and direction of Petak.
61. At all relevant times, Petak acted in the course and scope of his employment
with Defendant.
62. Defendant's aforesaid actions were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and/or
outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.
63. Plaintiff suffered grave injury as a result of Petak's sexual abuse and
misconduct, McIndhig physical, psychological and emotional injury as described above.
64. By the reason of the foregoing, Defendant are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory
and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,together with interest and costs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT. RECKLESS. AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
{00063729} 10
12 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
65. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
set forth herein.
66. At all relevant times, Defendant affinnatively and/or impliedly represented to
minor children, their families and the general public that agents of Our Lady of Mount Carmel,
including Petak, did not pose a risk and/or that they did not have a history of sexually abusing
children, and that children, including Plaintiff, would be safe in their care.
67. Defendant knew or should have known this representation was false and that
employing Petak and giving him unfettered access to children, including Plaintiff, posed an
unacceptable risk of harm to children.
68. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel maintained a policy and practice of
covering up criminal activity committed by Scout Masters and other agents within Our Lady of
Mount Carmel.
"cover-up"
69. Over the decades, this policy and practice of the Defendant resulted in the
sexual assault of untold üüiabers of children, and put numerous other children at risk of sexual
assault.
70. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel failed to report multiple allegations
of sexual abuse by its employees, agents and representatives, to the proper authorities, thereby
putting children at risk of sexual assault.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant covered up acts of abuse by Petak, and
concealed facts concerning Al Petak's sexual miscondüct from Plaintiff and his family.
72. By failing to disclose the identities, histories and information about sexually
abusive agents in their employ, including Petak, Defendant unreasonably deprived the families of
children entrusted to their care, including Plaintiff, of the ability to protect their children.
{00063729} 11
13 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
73. Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff and his parents that Petak posed a risk of
child sexual assault.
74. The conduct of Defendant as described herein was done with utter disregard as to
the potential profound injuries which would ensue, and with depraved indiffereñce to the health
and well-being of children, and to the fact that Defendant was knowingly subjecting children in
their charge, including Plaintiff, to sexual crimes.
75. Defendant's aforesaid actions were negligent, reckless, willful and wonton in their
disregard for the rights and safety of children, including Plaintiff.
76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiff suffered grave
injury, including the physical, psychological and emotional injury and damages as described
above.
77. By the reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for ceiiipcilsatory
and punitive damages, in an amount to be dctcrmined at trial,together with interest and costs.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTIES TO REPORT
78. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully
set forth herein
79. Pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, Defendant had a statutory duty
to report reascitable suspicion of abuse of children in their care.
80. Defendant breached its to report reasonable suspicion
statutory duty by failing
of abuse by Petak of children in their care.
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's foregoing breaches, Plaintiff
{00063729} 12
14 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
suffered grave injury, including the physical, psychological and emotional injury and damages as
described above.
82. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and
punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial,plus interest and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
a. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for his injuries, in an amount to be
determined at trial;
b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages for his iñjüries, in an amount to be determined
at trial;
c. Awarding Plaintiff prejudgment interest, to the extent available law;
by
attorneys'
d. Awarding Plaintiffs costs and disbursements and fees to the extent
available by law; and
e. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
83. Plaintiff demands a trialby jury of all issues triable by jury in this action.
Dated: July 21, 2021
Yours, etc.
PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP
/s/Michael DeRuve
By: Diane Paolicelli
dpaolicelli@p21aw.com
Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP
{00063729} 13
15 of 16
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021
747 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor
New York, New York 10017
212-388-5100
Michael Cooney (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Cooney & Conway
mcooney@cooneyconway.com
120 N LaSalle St
Chicago, IL 60602
312-236-6166
Attorneys for Plaintiff
{00063729} 14
16 of 16
Preview
FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE RICHARD MCPHILLIPS, SUMMONS Plaintiff, Index No.: vs. Plaintiff designates the of OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY County OF MIDDLETOWN INC. ORANGE as the place of trial. The basis N.Y., of venue is the Defendant's county of residence pursuant to CPLR §503. Defendant. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to ãñswer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete ifthis summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. DATED: New York, New York July 21, 2021 PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP /s/Michael DeRuve By: Diane Paolicelli dpaolicelli@p2Iaw.com Michael DeRuve mderuve@p2Iaw.com 747 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, New York 10017 212-388-5100 and {00053299} 1 Filedin Orange County 07/21/2021 12:49:35 PM $0.00 Bk: 1 of 5145 16 Pg: 1980 Index: # EF005120-2021 Clerk:EBR FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 Michael Cooney Pro hac vice Cooney & Conway mcooney@ cooney conway.com 120 N Lasalle Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312-814-0110 Attorneys for Plaintiff TO: OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY OF MIDDLETOWN N.Y., INC. 90 Euclid Ave., Middletown, NY 10940 {00053299} 2 2 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE RICHARD MCPHILLIPS, Plaintiff, vs. COMPLAINT Index No.: OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL SOCIETY OF MIDDLETOWN N.Y., INC., Defendants. Plaintiff RICHARD MCPHILLIPS, by and through his undersigned attorneys, as and for his Complaint, alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act, codified at CPLR 214-g. 2. Plaintiff Richard McPhillips was sexually abused and assaulted by AI Petak, a Scoutmaster in Troop 61 based in Middletown, NY. This Troop was a mcmber of the Boy Scouts of America (hereinafter "BSOA") and was a member of the Hudson Valley Council. Al Petak was hired, retained, supervised, placed, directed and otherwise authorized to act by Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel Society of Middletown, N.Y., Inc (hcreiñafter "Our Lady of Mount Carmel"). 3. Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America, Inc. and the Theodore Roosevelt Council, Boy Scouts of America for the same abuse as set forth herein. See Index No. 900089/2020. 4. Plaintiff's abuser, Al Petak, (herein "Petak"), was a scout leader of Boy Scout {00063729} 1 3 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 troops within the Hudson Valley Council, including Troop 61. This Troop's Chartered Organization was Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel. 5. Defendant negligently and recklessly selected, accepted, and/or retained Petak, and permitted him to have unfettered and unsupervised access to children, including Plaintiff, at Boy Scout events and camps. 6. Plaintiff was about 15 years old at the time he was sexually abused. Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to perform an appropriate background check of Petak prior to selecting, accepting, and/or retaining him, failed to supervise Petak and minor scouts in his presence, failed to identify and report inappropriate and/or suspicious behaviors by Petak, and otherwise ignored signs that Petak was a potential danger to minor scouts, was engaging in acts to groom minor scouts, and/or was engaging in inappropriate sexual contact with minor scouts during Boy Scout events, at Boy Scout camps, and elsewhere. 7. Perversion Files that are publicly available demonstrate the Defendant knew that Boy Scout leaders in the Orange County, New York area were accused of child sex abuse, credibly identified as abusers, and/or arrested for sexually abusing minors from the 1960s to 1970s, prior abuse.¹ to Plaintiff's 8. Further, other CVA complaints against the Defendant allege similar allegations of Defendant' abuse.2 grooming and sexual abuse at events and camps prior to Plaintiff's 9. Defendant knew or should have known that Petak presented a serious risk of harm to minor scouts, including Plaintiff. I See e.g.Pat Strine, https://www.crewjanci.com/files/1107.pdf; Matthew Malone, 1971 https://documents.latimes.com/matthew-malone/; Thomas Wayne Bradford, 1969, https://documents.latimes.com/thomas-wayne-bradford/; 2 Coats v.The Bovs Scouts of See e.g.Scott Gregory America. etal.,Index No. E2020-0067; Daniel Davis v. Longhouse Council, Inc.,BSOA, et al., Index No. 003094/2020; Timothy Tuttle v. Longhouse Council. Inc.BSOA, Index No. 003095/2020. {00063729} 2 4 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 10. Notwithstanding this knowledge, and the fiduciary duty and relationship of trust owed to parents and their children, Defendant negligently, recklessly, and willfully failed to protect Plaintiff from sexual abuse by Petak, permitted the abuse to occur, failed to supervise Petak and minor children like Plaintiff in his presence, failed to timely investigate Petak's misconduct, failed to report Petak's misconduct, failed to have in place appropriate policies and procedures to prevent sexual abuse of minors, failed to train minor scouts and/or scout leaders to identify and report inappropriate and/or suspicious behavior, failed to warn minor scouts and parents of prior sexual abuse by Scout Leaders of minor scouts, and are otherwise responsible for Petak's sexual assault of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's consequential injuries and damages. PARTIES 11. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Ulster County, New York. 12. Plaintiff was born in 1957. 13. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel Society of Middletown, N.Y., ("Our Lady of Mount Carmel") was and stillis a Roman Catholic Church, organized pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and located at 90 Euclid Ave. Middletown, NY, 10940. 14. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel owned, operated, controlled, and/or supervised Boy Scout programs, including Boy Scout events, in and around the Hudson Valley Council territory. 15. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel collectively and individually hired, employed, accepted, approved, retained, managed, oversaw, controlled and directed personnel, such as Scout Leaders, to perform functions that required them to interact with children at Boy Scout events and/or camps in and around the Hudson Valley Council territory. {00063729} 3 5 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Article VI of the New York Constitution. 17. Personal jurisdiction lies over Defendant as they are present and domiciled in the State of New York. 18. Venue of this action lies in Orange County and a substalitial part of the events or ornission giving rise to the claim occurred in Orange County and the Defendant resides in Orange County. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 20. In approximately 1973 Plaintiff was a Boy Scout in Troup 61, a member of the Hudson Valley Council. 21. At all relevant times, Petak was a Scout Master employed by the Hudson Valley Council, the BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel. 22. At all relevant times, Petak was under the direct supervision, employ, and control of Hudson Valley Council, BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel. 23. By assigning Petak to this role, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church gave Petak complete access to minors, including Plaintiff, and empowered him to exercise complete authority over minors. 24. Petak's duties and responsibilities included supervising, interacting with, and mentoring minor boys who were Boy Scouts in Troop 61. 25. In the performance of itsduties, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel {00063729} 4 6 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 authorized Petak to be alone with minor boys, includhg Plaintiff, and to have unfettered and üñsupervised access to them on Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trips. 26. Defendant allowed and encouraged young boys, like Plaintiff, to be along with Petak during Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trips and other events, and to obey his instructions. 27. Petak sexually assaulted Plaintiff in approximately 1973 when Plaintiff was approximately 15 years old. 28. The acts of sexual abuse coinniitted by Petak included, but were not limited to grabbing Plaintiff's genitals and manually stimulating Plaintiff's penis, and inserting his fingers inside of Plaintiff's anus. 29. The acts of sexual abuse comniitted by Petak occurred in a hotel room in Binghamton, NY on an Our Lady of Mount Carmel sponsored overnight trip. 30. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew or should have known that Petak was a danger to minor boys like Plaintiff before he abused Plaintiff sexually 31. Upon information and belief, Hudson Valley Council, BSOA, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel were not only aware of sexual abuse of children, but they participated in perpetuating and later covering up Al Petak's heinous acts. 32. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they had superior knowledge about the risks their facilities and activities posed to minor children, the risk of abuse in general, and the risks that Petak posed to Plaintiff. 33. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Petak was foreseeable and/or wanton and reckless. 34. Since at least 1947, BSOA kept an internal system called the "Ineligible Volunteer File" Files," (herein "I.V. files"), referred to also as the "Perversion which red flagged and {00063729} 5 7 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 identified scout leaders and other participants for misconduct: most commonly for allegations of sexual abuse of minors. 35. Perversion Files, which are publicly available, demonstrate BSOA, Hudson Valley Council, and Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew that Boy Scout leaders in Orange County, NY and the surrounding areas were accused, credibly found, and/or arrested for sexually 1970s.3 abusing minors from the 1960s to early 36. Upon information and belief, BSOA and Hudson Valley Council did not remove abusers in their Perversion Files even after being accused of sexual abuse, protected abusers, did not report them to the authorities, did not warn parents or minor scouts of these abusers, forced abusers to resign in exchange for not reporting them, and/or, worse, allowed them to return as Boy Scout leaders. 37. Each scouting group within BSOA is overseen by a Chartered Organization. The Chartered Organization representative holds a key position in Scouting and provides leadership, needed." meeting facilities, encouragement, and other support as 38. The Chartered Organization representative has important roles. As the head of the scouting department of the organization, itis responsible for the success of itsscouting units, and participates in the Local Council as a voting member. 39. The Chartered Organization representative is responsible for recruiting adult volunteers to provide leadership to each scouting unit within the organization. 3 Matthew 1971 See e.g.Pat Strine, https://www.crewjanci.com/files/1107agl_f; Malone, https://documents.latimes.com/matthew-malone/; Thomas Wayne Bradford, 1969, https://documents.latimes.com/thomas-wayne-bradford/; {00063729} 6 8 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 40. The Chartered Organization leadership has the responsibility to recruit adult leader for the scout units. This includes a responsibility to recruit adult volunteers who will act appropriately and not pose a risk to children. 41. The Chartered Organization has total authority to hire adult participants in its scouting program. The Chartered Organization has total authority to supervise the conduct of the adult volunteers, to implement safety policies to direct their conduct and to remove them from its scouting programs for any safety concerns. 42. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel was the Chartered Organization for Troop 61, of which Plaintiff and Petak were members. 43. At all relevant times, Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel knew or should have known that Petak was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the minors entrusted to his counsel, care and/or protection. 44. With such actual or constructive knowledge, the Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel provided Petak unfettered access to Plaintiff and gave him the opportüñity to commit foreseeable acts of child sexual abuse or assault. 45. Defendant owed Plaintiff a reasonable duty of care because they affinnatively solicited children and parents to send their children to Troop 61 to become Boy Scouts; they undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; they promoted their facilities and programs as being safe for children, they held out their agents, including Petak as safe to work with and around minor boys, they encouraged parents and children to spend time with their agents; and/or authorized their agents, including Petak, to spend time with, interact with, and recruit children. 46. Defendant owed Plaintiff a heightened, fidüciary duty of care because they held {00063729} 7 9 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 themselves out as being able to provide a safe and secure envirerement for children, including Plaintiff; Plaintiff's parents entrusted Plaintiff to Defendant's care, and expected that Plaintiff would be safe and properly supervised in an environment free from harm and abuse; Plaintiff was a vulnerable minor, and üñable to protect himself; and Defendant affirmatively assüñied a position of empowerment over Plaintiff. 47. The sexual abuse of Plaintiff was extreme and outrageous conduct, beyond all possible bounds of decency, atrocious and intolerable in a civilized world. 48. Defendant's aforesaid negligent, grossly negligent and reckless misconduct, endangered Plaintiff's safety and caused him to fear for his own safety. 49. Defendãñt knew or disregarded the substantial probability that Petak would cause severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. 50. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a vulnerable child entrusted to Defendant's care, and was under the supervision and control of Defendãñt, such that Defendant owed him a duty to act in loco parentis and to prevent foreseeable injuries. 51 By reason of the foregoing, Defendant breached itsduties to act in loco parentis. 52. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great physical and mental pain and anguish, severe and permanent emotional distress, psychological injuries, fear and anxiety; was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his normal daily activities; was and will continue to be deprived of the enjoyment of life's pleasures; has suffered and continues to suffer loss of spirituality; has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of earnings and eaming capacity; has incurred and will in the future incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, and was otherwise damaged in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of lower courts in this State. {00063729} 8 10 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 53. To the extent that Defendant pleads, or otherwise seeks to rely upon Article 16 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to have fault apportioned to another Defendant' allegedly culpable party, Plaintiff expressly states that conduct falls within one or more of the subdivisions of CPLR 1602. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT HIRING. RETENTION. SUPERVISON. AND DIRECTION 54. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 55. At all relevant times Defendant had a duty to exercise due care in hiring, appointing, assigning, retention, supervision and direction of Petak, so as to protect minor children, incIndhg Plaintiff, who were likely to come into contact with him, and/or under his influence or supervision, and to ensure that Petak did not use this assigned position to injure minors by sexual assault, contact or abuse. 56. Defendãñt was negligent and failed to use reasonable care in hiring, appointing, assigning, and retention, of Petak, failed to properly investigate his background and employment history, and/or hired, appointed and/or assigned him to Troop 61, when Defendant knew or should have known of facts that would make him a danger to children; and Defendant was otherwise negligent. 57. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their supervision and direction of Petak, failed to monitor his activities, failed to oversee the rñãñüer in which he carried out the duties to which Defendant assigned him, even though they knew or should have known that Petak posed a threat of sexual abuse to minors; allowed the misconduct described above to {00063729} 9 11 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 occur and continue; failed to investigate Petak's dangerous activities and remove him from their premises; and Defendant was otherwise negligent. 58. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their training, if any, of minors about the risk of sexual abuse in their facilities, to identify signs of sexual abuse, groomhg behaviors, and sexual predators, and to report suspicions that a minor was abused, maltreated, groomed, and/or otherwise sexually abused. 59. Defendant was negligent and did not use reasonable care in their training, if any, of adult staff about the risk of sexual abuse in their facilities, to identify signs of sexual abuse, grooming behaviors, and sexual predators, and their statutory duty to report suspicions that a minor was abused, maltreated, groomed, and/or otherwise sexually abused. 60. Petak would not have been in a position to sexually abuse Plaintiff had Defendant not been negligent in the hiring, retention, supervision, and direction of Petak. 61. At all relevant times, Petak acted in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant. 62. Defendant's aforesaid actions were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and/or outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff. 63. Plaintiff suffered grave injury as a result of Petak's sexual abuse and misconduct, McIndhig physical, psychological and emotional injury as described above. 64. By the reason of the foregoing, Defendant are liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,together with interest and costs. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT. RECKLESS. AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCT {00063729} 10 12 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 65. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 66. At all relevant times, Defendant affinnatively and/or impliedly represented to minor children, their families and the general public that agents of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, including Petak, did not pose a risk and/or that they did not have a history of sexually abusing children, and that children, including Plaintiff, would be safe in their care. 67. Defendant knew or should have known this representation was false and that employing Petak and giving him unfettered access to children, including Plaintiff, posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. 68. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel maintained a policy and practice of covering up criminal activity committed by Scout Masters and other agents within Our Lady of Mount Carmel. "cover-up" 69. Over the decades, this policy and practice of the Defendant resulted in the sexual assault of untold üüiabers of children, and put numerous other children at risk of sexual assault. 70. Defendant Our Lady of Mount Carmel failed to report multiple allegations of sexual abuse by its employees, agents and representatives, to the proper authorities, thereby putting children at risk of sexual assault. 71. Upon information and belief, Defendant covered up acts of abuse by Petak, and concealed facts concerning Al Petak's sexual miscondüct from Plaintiff and his family. 72. By failing to disclose the identities, histories and information about sexually abusive agents in their employ, including Petak, Defendant unreasonably deprived the families of children entrusted to their care, including Plaintiff, of the ability to protect their children. {00063729} 11 13 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 73. Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff and his parents that Petak posed a risk of child sexual assault. 74. The conduct of Defendant as described herein was done with utter disregard as to the potential profound injuries which would ensue, and with depraved indiffereñce to the health and well-being of children, and to the fact that Defendant was knowingly subjecting children in their charge, including Plaintiff, to sexual crimes. 75. Defendant's aforesaid actions were negligent, reckless, willful and wonton in their disregard for the rights and safety of children, including Plaintiff. 76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiff suffered grave injury, including the physical, psychological and emotional injury and damages as described above. 77. By the reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for ceiiipcilsatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be dctcrmined at trial,together with interest and costs. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTIES TO REPORT 78. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein 79. Pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, Defendant had a statutory duty to report reascitable suspicion of abuse of children in their care. 80. Defendant breached its to report reasonable suspicion statutory duty by failing of abuse by Petak of children in their care. 81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's foregoing breaches, Plaintiff {00063729} 12 14 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 suffered grave injury, including the physical, psychological and emotional injury and damages as described above. 82. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial,plus interest and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: a. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for his injuries, in an amount to be determined at trial; b. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages for his iñjüries, in an amount to be determined at trial; c. Awarding Plaintiff prejudgment interest, to the extent available law; by attorneys' d. Awarding Plaintiffs costs and disbursements and fees to the extent available by law; and e. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 83. Plaintiff demands a trialby jury of all issues triable by jury in this action. Dated: July 21, 2021 Yours, etc. PHILLIPS & PAOLICELLI, LLP /s/Michael DeRuve By: Diane Paolicelli dpaolicelli@p21aw.com Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP {00063729} 13 15 of 16 FILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2021 12:49 PM INDEX NO. EF005120-2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2021 747 Third Avenue, Sixth Floor New York, New York 10017 212-388-5100 Michael Cooney (pro hac vice forthcoming) Cooney & Conway mcooney@cooneyconway.com 120 N LaSalle St Chicago, IL 60602 312-236-6166 Attorneys for Plaintiff {00063729} 14 16 of 16