Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
X
RENNIE ALBA, Date Index No. Purchased:
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-
Plaintiff designates Kings
County as the place of trial.
ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, POWER MEMORIAL
ACADEMY, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE, The basis of venue is
EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH Defendant’s residence.
AMERICA, PETER A. COSTA, and BROTHER JOHN
GRANDE SUMMONS
Defendants.
X
The Above-Named Defendants:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer 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 Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this
summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New 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 26, 2021
1
1 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
TO: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK
1011 1st Avenue
New York, NY 10022
POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY
c/o The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
1011 1st Avenue
New York, NY 10022
THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE
260 Wilmot Road
New Rochelle, NY 10804
EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA
724 Monroe Avenue
Elizabeth, NJ 07201
PETER A. COSTA
200 Clinton Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10301
2
2 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
X
RENNIE ALBA, Date Filed:
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
-against-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW
YORK, POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY, THE
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE, EDMUND RICE
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA, PETER A.
COSTA, and JOHN GRANDE
Defendants.
X
Plaintiff, RENNIE ALBA (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys Slater Slater Schulman LLP,
brings this action against THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK
(“Diocese”), POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY (“School”), THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’
INSTITUTE and EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA (collectively,
“Irish Christian Brothers”), PETER A. COSTA (“Costa”), and JOHN GRANDE (“Grande”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges, on personal knowledge as to himself and on information
and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act (“CVA”). See CPLR §
214-g and 22 NYCRR 202.72; as it alleges physical, psychological, and emotional damages
suffered as a result of conduct against an infant that constitutes one or more sexual offenses as
defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including without limitation, conduct
constituting criminal sexual acts (consisting of oral or anal sexual conduct) (N.Y. Penal Law §§
3
3 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
130.40- 130.53), or sexual abuse (consisting of sexual contact) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.55 -
130.77).
2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Diocese pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and
302, as the Diocese resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in
New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the School pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and
302, as the School resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in
New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Christian Brothers’ Institute pursuant
to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the Christian Brothers’ Institute resides in New York or conducts, or
at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Edmund Rice Christian Brothers
North America pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North
America reside in New York or conduct, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York
that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Peter A. Costa pursuant to CPLR §§ 301
and 302, as Costa resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in
New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over John Grande pursuant to CPLR §§ 301
and 302, as Grande resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in
New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein.
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages Plaintiff
is seeking exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have
jurisdiction.
4
4 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
9. Venue for this action is proper in the County of Kings pursuant to CPLR § 503 as
Plaintiff resides in this County.
PARTIES
10. Whenever reference is made to any defendant entity, such reference includes that
entity, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors. In addition,
whenever reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of any entity, the allegation means that
the entity engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents,
employees, or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction,
control, or transaction of the entity’s business affairs.
11. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Kings County, New York. Plaintiff suffered the
sexual abuse described herein when he was approximately between thirteen (13) and fourteen (14)
years old.
12. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and continues to
be a non-profit religious corporation, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and
educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
13. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and remains
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place
of business at 1011 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022.
14. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese oversaw and continues
to oversee a variety of liturgical, sacramental, educational, and faith formation programs.
15. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to
have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities.
16. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese, through its agents,
servants, or employees had and continues to have control over activities involving children.
5
5 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
17. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to
have the power to employ individuals working with or alongside children, providing said children
with guidance or instruction under the auspices of the Diocese, including but not limited to those
at the School.
18. At all times material to this complaint, the School was a non-profit educational
corporation, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the
meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
19. The School is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New
York, with its principal place of business at 161 W 61st Street, New York, NY 10023.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendants closed the School in 1984 and the Diocese
maintains the remaining records and affairs of the School.
21. In or about the year 1984, the School closed, after the sexual abuse described herein.
22. Pursuant to N.Y. Bus. Corp. L § 1006, a dissolved corporation may sue or be sued
in all courts and participate in actions and proceedings in its corporate name and process may be
served upon it as the dissolution of a corporation does not affect any remedy against said
corporation for any liability incurred before such dissolution.
23. At all times material to this complaint, the School operated under the control of the
Diocese and the Irish Christian Brothers.
24. At all times material to this complaint, the School operated for the benefit of the
Diocese and the Irish Christian Brothers.
25. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers were
and continues to be an association of clergymen who operate and staff Catholic Schools, including
the School.
6
6 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
26. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Edmund Rice Christian Brothers
North America is a regional affiliate of the Christian Brothers’ Institute and comprised of members
of the Christian Brothers’ Institute.
27. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Christian Brothers’ Institute’s
principal place of business is 260 Wilmot Road, New Rochelle, New York 10804.
28. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Edmund Rice Christian Brothers
North America’s principal place of business is 724 Monroe Avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201.
29. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers oversaw
and continues to oversee a variety of liturgical sacramental, educational and faith formation
programs, including but not limited to those at the School.
30. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers had and
continues to have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities,
including but not limited to those at the School.
31. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers,
through its agents, servants, and/or employees, had and continues to have control over those
activities involving children, including but not limited to those at the School.
32. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers had and
continues to have the power to employ individuals working with and/or alongside children,
providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of the Irish Christian
Brothers, including but not limited to those at the School.
33. The Irish Christian Brothers are a Catholic religious order whose members,
Brothers, employees, and agents served in various Catholic institutions, including services at the
School.
7
7 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
34. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers
operated under the control of the Diocese.
35. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers
operated for the benefit of the Diocese.
36. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Brother Peter A. Costa and Brother
John Grande (collectively “Abusers”) were employed in leadership positions at the School.
37. Upon information and belief, Brother Peter A. Costa acted as athletic director at the
School.
38. Upon information and belief, Brother John Grande acted as a track coach at the
School.
39. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abusers were agents, servants, or
employees of the Diocese.
40. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese.
41. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the School.
42. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Irish
Christian Brothers.
43. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abusers were agents, servants, or
employees of the School.
44. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese.
8
8 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
45. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the School.
46. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Irish Christian
Brothers.
47. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of
the Diocese.
48. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of
the School.
49. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or
employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of
the Irish Christian Brothers.
50. The Diocese placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate access to
children.
51. The School placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate access to
children.
52. The Irish Christian Brothers placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate
access to children.
53. The Diocese placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered and prolonged
unsupervised access to children.
54. The School placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered and prolonged
unsupervised access to children.
9
9 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
55. The Irish Christian Brothers placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered
and prolonged unsupervised access to children.
BACKGROUND
56. By tradition, Roman Catholics and those within their custody and control, including
Plaintiff, are taught to hold religious figures in the highest esteem as earthly representatives of
God, and that religious figures, unlike lay people, belong to a separate and higher state in life,
which Defendants represent to be of divine origin and which they represent, entitles them to special
privileges. For these and other reasons relating to the practice of the Catholic Church, religious
figures, and other individuals in leadership positions in the Catholic Church have traditionally
occupied positions of great trust, respect, and allegiance among adults and children, including
Plaintiff.
57. The pattern and practice of intentionally refusing or failing to disclose the identities
and locations of sexually inappropriate or abusive clerics has been practiced by the Diocese for
decades and continues through current day. The failure to disclose the identities of allegedly
sexually inappropriate or abusive clerics is unreasonable, and knowingly, or recklessly creates or
maintains a condition that endangers the safety and health of members of the public, and more
specifically, Plaintiff herein.
58. Further, Catholic Church officials, including Defendants herein, have used their
power and influence to prevent victims and their families from disclosing allegations of abuse.
FACTS
59. Plaintiff was raised in a Roman Catholic family and began attending the School in
or about 1982 when Plaintiff was approximately thirteen (13) years old.
60. Plaintiff attended the School, a parochial school under the authority of the Irish
Christian Brothers and Diocese, for his middle school education.
10
10 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
61. Plaintiff attended the School from in or about 1982 to 1984, when Plaintiff was
approximately thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) years old.
62. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were Plaintiff’s coaches and/or
counselors at the School and provided educational and religious instruction to infant Plaintiff under
the auspices of the Diocese, School, and Irish Christian Brothers.
63. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were adults.
64. Up until approximately the summer of 1984, Plaintiff engaged in recreational,
educational, and religious activities at the School.
65. During said activities, Plaintiff, as a vulnerable minor, was dependent on the
Defendants and Abusers for his care and welfare.
66. During said activities, Defendants had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the
entrustment of then infant Plaintiff.
67. During said activities, Defendants were responsible for, and had authority over,
then infant Plaintiff.
68. Under the doctrine of in loco parentis, Defendants assumed duties to protect the
then infant Plaintiff from harm.
69. Through their positions at, within, or for Defendants, Abusers were put in direct
contact with Plaintiff, a minor student and parishioner of Defendants’.
70. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff came to be under the direction, contact, and
control of Abusers, who used their positions of authority and trust to sexually abuse and assault
then infant Plaintiff.
71. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while
acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants,
or volunteers of the Diocese, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual contact with
11
11 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s Penal Law Article
130.
72. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while
acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants,
or volunteers of the School, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual contact with
Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s Penal Law Article
130.
73. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while
acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants,
or volunteers of the Irish Christian Brothers, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual
contact with Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s
Penal Law Article 130.
74. Specifically, the abuse included, but was not limited to Abusers, either individually
or in concert, digitally penetrating then infant Plaintiff’s anus and fondling infant Plaintiff’s
exposed genitals.
75. Said sexual abuse occurred in a separate room near the gym lockers in the School.
76. Several other minor male students had been sexually abused in the same manner as
then infant Plaintiff, as Abusers would gather infant Plaintiff and other minor male students under
the ruse of conducting physical examinations.
77. Plaintiff’s relationship to the Diocese, as a vulnerable minor, parishioner, and
participant in its religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant Plaintiff was
subject to its ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff
pressured Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
12
12 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
78. Plaintiff’s relationship to the School, as a vulnerable minor, student, and participant
in its religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant Plaintiff was subject to its
ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff pressured
Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
79. Plaintiff’s relationship to the Irish Christian Brothers, as a vulnerable minor,
student, and participant in their religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant
Plaintiff was subject to their ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church
over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
80. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision,
employ, or control of the Diocese.
81. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision,
employ, or control of the School.
82. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision,
employ, or control of the Irish Christian Brothers.
83. The Diocese knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly condoned, or
covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers.
84. The School knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly condoned, or
covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers.
85. The Irish Christian Brothers knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly
condoned, or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers.
86. The Diocese negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to work with
children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers would not
sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children.
13
13 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
87. The School negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to work with
children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers would not
sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children.
88. The Irish Christian Brothers negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to
work with children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers
would not sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children.
89. The Diocese had the responsibility to supervise and direct its employees or agents
serving at the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals such as Abusers by
assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access to minors.
90. The School had the responsibility to supervise and direct its employees or agents
serving at the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals such as Abusers by
assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access to minors.
91. The Irish Christian Brothers had the responsibility to supervise and direct their
employees or agents serving with the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals
such as Abusers by assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access
to minors.
92. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody,
supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the Diocese entered a
fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor and the
Diocese undertaking his care and guidance, the Diocese held a distinct position of power over
Plaintiff.
93. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody,
supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the School entered a fiduciary
14
14 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor and the School
undertaking his care and guidance, the School held a distinct position of power over Plaintiff.
94. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody,
supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the Irish Christian Brothers
entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor
and the Irish Christian Brothers undertaking his care and guidance, the Irish Christian Brothers
held a distinct position of power over Plaintiff.
95. By holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, the
Diocese sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This empowerment prevented
then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the Diocese entered a
fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff.
96. By holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, the
School sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This empowerment prevented
then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the School entered a fiduciary
relationship with Plaintiff.
97. By holding themselves out as being able to provide a safe environment for children,
the Irish Christian Brothers sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This
empowerment prevented then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the
Irish Christian Brothers entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff.
98. The Diocese had a special relationship with Plaintiff.
99. The School had a special relationship with Plaintiff.
100. The Irish Christian Brothers had a special relationship with Plaintiff.
15
15 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
101. The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the Diocese had
knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its
programs, and the risks that its facilities posed to minor children.
102. The School owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the School had
knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its
programs, and the risks that its facilities posed to minor children.
103. The Irish Christian Brothers owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the
Irish Christian Brothers had knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of
abuse in general in their programs, and the risks that their facilities posed to minor children.
104. The Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they sought out
youth or their parents or guardians for participation in their programs; encouraged youth and their
parents or guardians to have the youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of said
youth; promoted their facilities and programs as being safe for children; held their agents, out as
safe to work with children; encouraged youth and their parents or guardians to spend time with
their agents; and encouraged their agents, to spend time with, interact with, and welcome children.
105. The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because the
Diocese’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
106. The School owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because the
School’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
107. The Irish Christian Brothers owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm
because the Irish Christian Brothers’ actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
108. At all times material to this complaint, the Defendants, or their agents, or their
employees, were responsible and liable for each other’s negligent actions and omissions via, but
not limited to, respondeat superior. However, Plaintiff does not allege that the doctrine of
16
16 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
respondeat superior applies directly to intentional acts of sexual assault or sexual abuse alleged
of the individual perpetrator identified in this complaint.
109. The Diocese’s breach of its duties include, but are not limited to: failure to have
sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly implement the
policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make
sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working, failure to
adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to investigate
risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train the workers at institutions and programs within
the Diocese, failure to protect children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere
to the applicable standard of care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of
information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to
train their employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure
by relying on mental health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they
could treat child molesters.
110. The School’s breach of its duties include, but are not limited to: failure to have
sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly implement the
policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make
sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working, failure to
adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to investigate
risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train the workers within the School, failure to protect
children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere to the applicable standard of
care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to
represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to train their employees
properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure by relying on mental
17
17 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they could treat child
molesters.
111. The Irish Christian Brothers’ breach of their duties include, but are not limited to:
failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly
implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable
measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working,
failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to
investigate risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train those within the Irish Christian
Brothers, failure to protect children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere to
the applicable standard of care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of
information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to
train their employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure
by relying on mental health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they
could treat child molesters.
112. The Diocese also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by its employees or
agents. The Diocese also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of the knowledge that it had about
child sexual abuse.
113. The School also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by its employees or
agents. The School also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of the knowledge that it had about child
sexual abuse.
114. The Irish Christian Brothers also breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by
18
18 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
their employees or agents. The Irish Christian Brothers also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of
the knowledge that they had about child sexual abuse.
115. The Diocese also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or suspected abuse
of children by Abusers or its other agents to the police and law enforcement.
116. The School also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or suspected abuse
of children by Abusers or its other agents to the police and law enforcement.
117. The Irish Christian Brothers also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or
suspected abuse of children by Abusers or their other agents to the police and law enforcement.
118. By employing Abusers at the Diocese, School, or other facilities under its
supervision, the Diocese, through its agents, affirmatively represented to minor children and their
families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting children,
that the Diocese did not know that Abusers had a history of molesting children, and that the
Diocese did not know Abusers were a danger to children. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family were
induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them.
119. By employing Abusers at the School, the School through its agents, affirmatively
represented to minor children and their families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did
not have a history of molesting children, that the School did not know that Abusers had a history
of molesting children, and that the School did not know Abusers were a danger to children.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family were induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them.
120. By employing Abusers at the School, or other facilities under their supervision, the
Irish Christian Brothers through their agents, affirmatively represented to minor children and their
families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting children,
that the Irish Christian Brothers did not know that Abusers had a history of molesting children,
19
19 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
and that the Irish Christian Brothers did not know Abusers were a danger to children. Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s family were induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them.
121. At no time did the Diocese ever send an official, investigator, or any employee or
independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students, or
their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against Abusers
and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and file a
report with the police department. Rather, the Diocese remained silent.
122. At no time did the School ever send an official, investigator, or any employee or
independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students, or
their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against Abusers
and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and file a
report with the police department. Rather, the School remained silent.
123. At no time did the Irish Christian Brothers ever send an official, investigator, or
any employee or independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners,
students, or their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against
Abusers and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and
file a report with the police department. Rather, the Irish Christian Brothers remained silent.
124. The Diocese, as school administrators, violated various New York statutes,
including, but not limited to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, which require, inter alia, school
officials, teachers, day care center workers, providers of family or group family day care, and any
other childcare worker to report suspected cases of child abuse and impose liability for failure to
report.
125. The School violated various New York statutes, including, but not limited to N.Y.
Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, which require, inter alia, school officials, teachers, day care center
20
20 of 41
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021
workers, providers of family or group family day care, and any other childcare worker to report
suspected cases of child abuse and impose liability for failure to report.
126. The Irish Christian Brother
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS X RENNIE ALBA, Date Index No. Purchased: Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- Plaintiff designates Kings County as the place of trial. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE, The basis of venue is EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH Defendant’s residence. AMERICA, PETER A. COSTA, and BROTHER JOHN GRANDE SUMMONS Defendants. X The Above-Named Defendants: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer 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 Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New 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 26, 2021 1 1 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 TO: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK 1011 1st Avenue New York, NY 10022 POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY c/o The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York 1011 1st Avenue New York, NY 10022 THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE 260 Wilmot Road New Rochelle, NY 10804 EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA 724 Monroe Avenue Elizabeth, NJ 07201 PETER A. COSTA 200 Clinton Avenue Staten Island, NY 10301 2 2 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS X RENNIE ALBA, Date Filed: Index No.: Plaintiff, -against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK, POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE, EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA, PETER A. COSTA, and JOHN GRANDE Defendants. X Plaintiff, RENNIE ALBA (“Plaintiff”), by his attorneys Slater Slater Schulman LLP, brings this action against THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK (“Diocese”), POWER MEMORIAL ACADEMY (“School”), THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS’ INSTITUTE and EDMUND RICE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS NORTH AMERICA (collectively, “Irish Christian Brothers”), PETER A. COSTA (“Costa”), and JOHN GRANDE (“Grande”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges, on personal knowledge as to himself and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action is brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act (“CVA”). See CPLR § 214-g and 22 NYCRR 202.72; as it alleges physical, psychological, and emotional damages suffered as a result of conduct against an infant that constitutes one or more sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including without limitation, conduct constituting criminal sexual acts (consisting of oral or anal sexual conduct) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 3 3 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 130.40- 130.53), or sexual abuse (consisting of sexual contact) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.55 - 130.77). 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Diocese pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the Diocese resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the School pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the School resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Christian Brothers’ Institute pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the Christian Brothers’ Institute resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North America pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as the Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North America reside in New York or conduct, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Peter A. Costa pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as Costa resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over John Grande pursuant to CPLR §§ 301 and 302, as Grande resides in New York or conducts, or at relevant times conducted, activities in New York that give rise to the claims asserted herein. 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages Plaintiff is seeking exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 4 4 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 9. Venue for this action is proper in the County of Kings pursuant to CPLR § 503 as Plaintiff resides in this County. PARTIES 10. Whenever reference is made to any defendant entity, such reference includes that entity, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors. In addition, whenever reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of any entity, the allegation means that the entity engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or through its officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of the entity’s business affairs. 11. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Kings County, New York. Plaintiff suffered the sexual abuse described herein when he was approximately between thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) years old. 12. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and continues to be a non-profit religious corporation, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 13. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese was and remains authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 1011 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 14. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese oversaw and continues to oversee a variety of liturgical, sacramental, educational, and faith formation programs. 15. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities. 16. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese, through its agents, servants, or employees had and continues to have control over activities involving children. 5 5 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 17. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Diocese had and continues to have the power to employ individuals working with or alongside children, providing said children with guidance or instruction under the auspices of the Diocese, including but not limited to those at the School. 18. At all times material to this complaint, the School was a non-profit educational corporation, organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 19. The School is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 161 W 61st Street, New York, NY 10023. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendants closed the School in 1984 and the Diocese maintains the remaining records and affairs of the School. 21. In or about the year 1984, the School closed, after the sexual abuse described herein. 22. Pursuant to N.Y. Bus. Corp. L § 1006, a dissolved corporation may sue or be sued in all courts and participate in actions and proceedings in its corporate name and process may be served upon it as the dissolution of a corporation does not affect any remedy against said corporation for any liability incurred before such dissolution. 23. At all times material to this complaint, the School operated under the control of the Diocese and the Irish Christian Brothers. 24. At all times material to this complaint, the School operated for the benefit of the Diocese and the Irish Christian Brothers. 25. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers were and continues to be an association of clergymen who operate and staff Catholic Schools, including the School. 6 6 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 26. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North America is a regional affiliate of the Christian Brothers’ Institute and comprised of members of the Christian Brothers’ Institute. 27. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Christian Brothers’ Institute’s principal place of business is 260 Wilmot Road, New Rochelle, New York 10804. 28. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North America’s principal place of business is 724 Monroe Avenue, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201. 29. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers oversaw and continues to oversee a variety of liturgical sacramental, educational and faith formation programs, including but not limited to those at the School. 30. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers had and continues to have various programs that seek out the participation of children in its activities, including but not limited to those at the School. 31. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers, through its agents, servants, and/or employees, had and continues to have control over those activities involving children, including but not limited to those at the School. 32. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers had and continues to have the power to employ individuals working with and/or alongside children, providing said children with guidance and/or instruction under the auspices of the Irish Christian Brothers, including but not limited to those at the School. 33. The Irish Christian Brothers are a Catholic religious order whose members, Brothers, employees, and agents served in various Catholic institutions, including services at the School. 7 7 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 34. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers operated under the control of the Diocese. 35. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, the Irish Christian Brothers operated for the benefit of the Diocese. 36. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Brother Peter A. Costa and Brother John Grande (collectively “Abusers”) were employed in leadership positions at the School. 37. Upon information and belief, Brother Peter A. Costa acted as athletic director at the School. 38. Upon information and belief, Brother John Grande acted as a track coach at the School. 39. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abusers were agents, servants, or employees of the Diocese. 40. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese. 41. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the School. 42. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Diocese, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Irish Christian Brothers. 43. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, Abusers were agents, servants, or employees of the School. 44. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese. 8 8 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 45. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the School. 46. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the School, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Irish Christian Brothers. 47. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Diocese. 48. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the School. 49. At all times material to the Verified Complaint, while agents, servants, or employees of the Irish Christian Brothers, Abusers remained under the control and supervision of the Irish Christian Brothers. 50. The Diocese placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate access to children. 51. The School placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate access to children. 52. The Irish Christian Brothers placed Abusers in positions where they had immediate access to children. 53. The Diocese placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered and prolonged unsupervised access to children. 54. The School placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered and prolonged unsupervised access to children. 9 9 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 55. The Irish Christian Brothers placed Abusers in positions where they had unfettered and prolonged unsupervised access to children. BACKGROUND 56. By tradition, Roman Catholics and those within their custody and control, including Plaintiff, are taught to hold religious figures in the highest esteem as earthly representatives of God, and that religious figures, unlike lay people, belong to a separate and higher state in life, which Defendants represent to be of divine origin and which they represent, entitles them to special privileges. For these and other reasons relating to the practice of the Catholic Church, religious figures, and other individuals in leadership positions in the Catholic Church have traditionally occupied positions of great trust, respect, and allegiance among adults and children, including Plaintiff. 57. The pattern and practice of intentionally refusing or failing to disclose the identities and locations of sexually inappropriate or abusive clerics has been practiced by the Diocese for decades and continues through current day. The failure to disclose the identities of allegedly sexually inappropriate or abusive clerics is unreasonable, and knowingly, or recklessly creates or maintains a condition that endangers the safety and health of members of the public, and more specifically, Plaintiff herein. 58. Further, Catholic Church officials, including Defendants herein, have used their power and influence to prevent victims and their families from disclosing allegations of abuse. FACTS 59. Plaintiff was raised in a Roman Catholic family and began attending the School in or about 1982 when Plaintiff was approximately thirteen (13) years old. 60. Plaintiff attended the School, a parochial school under the authority of the Irish Christian Brothers and Diocese, for his middle school education. 10 10 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 61. Plaintiff attended the School from in or about 1982 to 1984, when Plaintiff was approximately thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) years old. 62. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were Plaintiff’s coaches and/or counselors at the School and provided educational and religious instruction to infant Plaintiff under the auspices of the Diocese, School, and Irish Christian Brothers. 63. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were adults. 64. Up until approximately the summer of 1984, Plaintiff engaged in recreational, educational, and religious activities at the School. 65. During said activities, Plaintiff, as a vulnerable minor, was dependent on the Defendants and Abusers for his care and welfare. 66. During said activities, Defendants had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of then infant Plaintiff. 67. During said activities, Defendants were responsible for, and had authority over, then infant Plaintiff. 68. Under the doctrine of in loco parentis, Defendants assumed duties to protect the then infant Plaintiff from harm. 69. Through their positions at, within, or for Defendants, Abusers were put in direct contact with Plaintiff, a minor student and parishioner of Defendants’. 70. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff came to be under the direction, contact, and control of Abusers, who used their positions of authority and trust to sexually abuse and assault then infant Plaintiff. 71. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, or volunteers of the Diocese, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual contact with 11 11 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s Penal Law Article 130. 72. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, or volunteers of the School, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual contact with Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s Penal Law Article 130. 73. Between approximately 1982 and 1983, while Plaintiff was a minor, Abusers, while acting as a priests, counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, or volunteers of the Irish Christian Brothers, sexually assaulted, sexually abused, or had sexual contact with Plaintiff in violation of the laws of the State of New York, including New York’s Penal Law Article 130. 74. Specifically, the abuse included, but was not limited to Abusers, either individually or in concert, digitally penetrating then infant Plaintiff’s anus and fondling infant Plaintiff’s exposed genitals. 75. Said sexual abuse occurred in a separate room near the gym lockers in the School. 76. Several other minor male students had been sexually abused in the same manner as then infant Plaintiff, as Abusers would gather infant Plaintiff and other minor male students under the ruse of conducting physical examinations. 77. Plaintiff’s relationship to the Diocese, as a vulnerable minor, parishioner, and participant in its religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant Plaintiff was subject to its ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 12 12 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 78. Plaintiff’s relationship to the School, as a vulnerable minor, student, and participant in its religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant Plaintiff was subject to its ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 79. Plaintiff’s relationship to the Irish Christian Brothers, as a vulnerable minor, student, and participant in their religious and instructional activities, was one in which then infant Plaintiff was subject to their ongoing influence. The dominating culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff pressured Plaintiff not to report Abusers’ sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 80. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision, employ, or control of the Diocese. 81. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision, employ, or control of the School. 82. At all times material to this complaint, Abusers were under the direct supervision, employ, or control of the Irish Christian Brothers. 83. The Diocese knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly condoned, or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers. 84. The School knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly condoned, or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers. 85. The Irish Christian Brothers knew, or reasonably should have known, or knowingly condoned, or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of Abusers. 86. The Diocese negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to work with children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers would not sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children. 13 13 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 87. The School negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to work with children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers would not sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children. 88. The Irish Christian Brothers negligently or recklessly believed Abusers were fit to work with children, that any previous problems Abusers had were fixed and cured, that Abusers would not sexually molest children, and that Abusers would not injure children. 89. The Diocese had the responsibility to supervise and direct its employees or agents serving at the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals such as Abusers by assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access to minors. 90. The School had the responsibility to supervise and direct its employees or agents serving at the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals such as Abusers by assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access to minors. 91. The Irish Christian Brothers had the responsibility to supervise and direct their employees or agents serving with the School, and specifically had a duty not to aid individuals such as Abusers by assigning, maintaining, or appointing, them to positions with unfettered access to minors. 92. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody, supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the Diocese entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor and the Diocese undertaking his care and guidance, the Diocese held a distinct position of power over Plaintiff. 93. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody, supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the School entered a fiduciary 14 14 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor and the School undertaking his care and guidance, the School held a distinct position of power over Plaintiff. 94. By holding Abusers out as safe to work with children and undertaking the custody, supervision, and care of minor Plaintiff as a parishioner and student, the Irish Christian Brothers entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff being a vulnerable minor and the Irish Christian Brothers undertaking his care and guidance, the Irish Christian Brothers held a distinct position of power over Plaintiff. 95. By holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, the Diocese sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This empowerment prevented then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the Diocese entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. 96. By holding itself out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, the School sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This empowerment prevented then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the School entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. 97. By holding themselves out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, the Irish Christian Brothers sought and accepted this position of power over Plaintiff. This empowerment prevented then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting himself. As a result, the Irish Christian Brothers entered a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff. 98. The Diocese had a special relationship with Plaintiff. 99. The School had a special relationship with Plaintiff. 100. The Irish Christian Brothers had a special relationship with Plaintiff. 15 15 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 101. The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the Diocese had knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its programs, and the risks that its facilities posed to minor children. 102. The School owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the School had knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in its programs, and the risks that its facilities posed to minor children. 103. The Irish Christian Brothers owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because the Irish Christian Brothers had knowledge about the risk that Abusers posed to Plaintiff, the risk of abuse in general in their programs, and the risks that their facilities posed to minor children. 104. The Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they sought out youth or their parents or guardians for participation in their programs; encouraged youth and their parents or guardians to have the youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of said youth; promoted their facilities and programs as being safe for children; held their agents, out as safe to work with children; encouraged youth and their parents or guardians to spend time with their agents; and encouraged their agents, to spend time with, interact with, and welcome children. 105. The Diocese owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because the Diocese’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 106. The School owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because the School’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 107. The Irish Christian Brothers owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because the Irish Christian Brothers’ actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 108. At all times material to this complaint, the Defendants, or their agents, or their employees, were responsible and liable for each other’s negligent actions and omissions via, but not limited to, respondeat superior. However, Plaintiff does not allege that the doctrine of 16 16 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 respondeat superior applies directly to intentional acts of sexual assault or sexual abuse alleged of the individual perpetrator identified in this complaint. 109. The Diocese’s breach of its duties include, but are not limited to: failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working, failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train the workers at institutions and programs within the Diocese, failure to protect children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to train their employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure by relying on mental health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they could treat child molesters. 110. The School’s breach of its duties include, but are not limited to: failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working, failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train the workers within the School, failure to protect children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to train their employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure by relying on mental 17 17 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they could treat child molesters. 111. The Irish Christian Brothers’ breach of their duties include, but are not limited to: failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse, failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse were working, failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse, failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse, failure to properly train those within the Irish Christian Brothers, failure to protect children in their programs from child sexual abuse, failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety, failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to represent the institutions, programs, leaders and people as safe, failure to train their employees properly to identify signs of child molestation by fellow employees, failure by relying on mental health professionals, or failure by relying on people who claimed that they could treat child molesters. 112. The Diocese also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by its employees or agents. The Diocese also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of the knowledge that it had about child sexual abuse. 113. The School also breached its duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by its employees or agents. The School also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of the knowledge that it had about child sexual abuse. 114. The Irish Christian Brothers also breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family of the risk Abusers posed and the risks of child sexual abuse by 18 18 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 their employees or agents. The Irish Christian Brothers also failed to warn Plaintiff about any of the knowledge that they had about child sexual abuse. 115. The Diocese also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or suspected abuse of children by Abusers or its other agents to the police and law enforcement. 116. The School also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or suspected abuse of children by Abusers or its other agents to the police and law enforcement. 117. The Irish Christian Brothers also violated a legal duty by failing to report known or suspected abuse of children by Abusers or their other agents to the police and law enforcement. 118. By employing Abusers at the Diocese, School, or other facilities under its supervision, the Diocese, through its agents, affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting children, that the Diocese did not know that Abusers had a history of molesting children, and that the Diocese did not know Abusers were a danger to children. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family were induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them. 119. By employing Abusers at the School, the School through its agents, affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting children, that the School did not know that Abusers had a history of molesting children, and that the School did not know Abusers were a danger to children. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family were induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them. 120. By employing Abusers at the School, or other facilities under their supervision, the Irish Christian Brothers through their agents, affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that Abusers did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting children, that the Irish Christian Brothers did not know that Abusers had a history of molesting children, 19 19 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 and that the Irish Christian Brothers did not know Abusers were a danger to children. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family were induced to rely on these affirmations and did rely on them. 121. At no time did the Diocese ever send an official, investigator, or any employee or independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students, or their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against Abusers and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the Diocese remained silent. 122. At no time did the School ever send an official, investigator, or any employee or independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students, or their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against Abusers and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the School remained silent. 123. At no time did the Irish Christian Brothers ever send an official, investigator, or any employee or independent contractor to advise or provide any form of notice to the parishioners, students, or their families, either verbally or in writing, that there were credible allegations against Abusers and to request anyone who saw, suspected, or suffered sexual abuse, to come forward and file a report with the police department. Rather, the Irish Christian Brothers remained silent. 124. The Diocese, as school administrators, violated various New York statutes, including, but not limited to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, which require, inter alia, school officials, teachers, day care center workers, providers of family or group family day care, and any other childcare worker to report suspected cases of child abuse and impose liability for failure to report. 125. The School violated various New York statutes, including, but not limited to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 413 and 420, which require, inter alia, school officials, teachers, day care center 20 20 of 41 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2021 09:03 AM INDEX NO. 518463/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2021 workers, providers of family or group family day care, and any other childcare worker to report suspected cases of child abuse and impose liability for failure to report. 126. The Irish Christian Brother