Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings in Caroline Borrino v. Diocese Of Brooklyn, Our Lady Of Guadalupe Church And School, Sisters Of St. Joseph, Sisters Of St. Dominic| Trellis.Law

On March 12, 2020 a Answer was filed involving a dispute between Caroline Borrino, and Diocese Of Brooklyn, Our Lady Of Guadalupe Church And School, Sisters Of St. Dominic, Sisters Of St. Joseph, for Torts - Child Victims Act in the District Court of Kings County.

Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
CAROLINE BORRINO, Index No. 506296/2020

Plaintiff,
ANSWER TO SECOND
-against- AMENDED COMPLAINT

DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, OUR LADY OF
GUADALUPE CHURCH AND SCHOOL, SISTERS
OF ST. JOSEPH, and SISTERS OF ST. DOMINIC,

Defendants.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
Defendant Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic (incorrectly sued herein as Sisters of St.

Dominic) (“SSD” or “Defendant”), by and through its attorneys, Farrell Fritz, P.C., as and for its

Answer to the Second Amended Complaint of Plaintiff Caroline Borrino (“Plaintiff”), states and

alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Denies the allegations in paragraph “1” of the Second Amended Complaint.

PROCEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 214-G AND 22 NYCRR 202.72

2. Admits that Plaintiff purports to state a claim pursuant to the Child Victims Act

(“CVA”), CPLR 214-g and 22 NYCRR § 202.72, but, except as so admitted, denies the allegations

contained in paragraph “2” of the Second Amended Complaint.

PARTIES

3. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “3” of the Second Amended Complaint.

4. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “4” of the Second Amended Complaint.

1 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

5. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “5” of the Second Amended Complaint.

6. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “6” of the Second Amended Complaint.

7. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “7” of the Second Amended Complaint.

8. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “8” of the Second Amended Complaint.

9. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “9” of the Second Amended Complaint.

10. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “10” of the Second Amended Complaint.

11. The allegations set forth in paragraph “11” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

12. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “12” of the Second Amended Complaint.

13. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “13” of the Second Amended Complaint.

14. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “14” of the Second Amended Complaint.

15. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “15” of the Second Amended Complaint.

2 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

16. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “16” of the Second Amended Complaint.

17. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “17” of the Second Amended Complaint.

18. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “18” of the Second Amended Complaint.

19. The allegations set forth in paragraph “19” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

20. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “20” of the Second Amended Complaint.

21. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “21” of the Second Amended Complaint.

22. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “22” of the Second Amended Complaint.

23. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “23” of the Second Amended Complaint.

24. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “24” of the Second Amended Complaint.

25. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “25” of the Second Amended Complaint.

26. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “26” of the Second Amended Complaint.

3 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

27. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “27” of the Second Amended Complaint.

28. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “28” of the Second Amended Complaint.

29. The allegations set forth in paragraph “29” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

30. Admits that SSD “was a not-for-profit religious corporation organized under New

York law with its principal office in Amityville, New York,” but, except as so admitted, denies the

allegations contained in paragraph “30” of the Second Amended Complaint.

31. Denies the allegations in paragraph “31” of the Second Amended Complaint.

32. Denies the allegations in paragraph “32” of the Second Amended Complaint.

33. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “33” of the Second Amended Complaint.

34. Denies the allegations in paragraph “34” of the Second Amended Complaint.

35. Denies the allegations in paragraph “35” of the Second Amended Complaint.

36. Denies the allegations in paragraph “36” of the Second Amended Complaint.

37. Denies the allegations in paragraph “37” of the Second Amended Complaint.

38. Denies the allegations in paragraph “38” of the Second Amended Complaint.

39. The allegations set forth in paragraph “39” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

4 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

VENUE

40. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “40” of the Second Amended Complaint.

41. The allegations in paragraph “41” of the Second Amended Complaint state a legal

conclusion to which no response is required.

42. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “42” of the Second Amended Complaint.

43. The allegations in paragraph “43” of the Second Amended Complaint state a legal

conclusion to which no response is required.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

44. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “44” of the Second Amended Complaint.

45. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “45” of the Second Amended Complaint.

46. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “46” of the Second Amended Complaint.

47. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “47” of the Second Amended Complaint.

48. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “48” of the Second Amended Complaint.

49. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “49” of the Second Amended Complaint.

5 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

50. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “50” of the Second Amended Complaint.

51. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “51” of the Second Amended Complaint.

52. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “52” of the Second Amended Complaint.

53. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “53” of the Second Amended Complaint.

54. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “54” of the Second Amended Complaint.

55. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “55” of the Second Amended Complaint.

56. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “56” of the Second Amended Complaint.

57. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “57” of the Second Amended Complaint.

58. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “58” of the Second Amended Complaint.

59. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “59” of the Second Amended Complaint.

60. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “60” of the Second Amended Complaint.

6 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

61. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “61” of the Second Amended Complaint.

62. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “62” of the Second Amended Complaint.

63. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “63” of the Second Amended Complaint.

64. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “64” of the Second Amended Complaint.

65. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “65” of the Second Amended Complaint.

66. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “66” of the Second Amended Complaint.

67. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “67” of the Second Amended Complaint.

68. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “68” of the Second Amended Complaint.

69. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “69” of the Second Amended Complaint.

70. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “70” of the Second Amended Complaint.

71. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “71” of the Second Amended Complaint.

7 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

72. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “72” of the Second Amended Complaint.

73. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “73” of the Second Amended Complaint.

74. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “74” of the Second Amended Complaint.

75. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “75” of the Second Amended Complaint.

76. Denies the allegations in paragraph “76” of the Second Amended Complaint.

77. Denies the allegations in paragraph “77” of the Second Amended Complaint.

78. Denies the allegations in paragraph “78” of the Second Amended Complaint.

79. Denies the allegations in paragraph “79” of the Second Amended Complaint.

80. Denies the allegations in paragraph “80” of the Second Amended Complaint.

81. Denies the allegations in paragraph “81” of the Second Amended Complaint.

82. Denies the allegations in paragraph “82” of the Second Amended Complaint.

83. Denies the allegations in paragraph “83” of the Second Amended Complaint.

84. Denies the allegations in paragraph “84” of the Second Amended Complaint.

85. Denies the allegations in paragraph “85” of the Second Amended Complaint.

86. Denies the allegations in paragraph “86” of the Second Amended Complaint.

87. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “87” of the Second Amended Complaint.

88. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “88” of the Second Amended Complaint.

8 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

89. Denies the allegations in paragraph “89” of the Second Amended Complaint.

90. Denies the allegations in paragraph “90” of the Second Amended Complaint.

91. Denies the allegations in paragraph “91” of the Second Amended Complaint.

92. Denies the allegations in paragraph “92” of the Second Amended Complaint.

93. Denies the allegations in paragraph “93” of the Second Amended Complaint.

94. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “94” of the Second Amended Complaint.

95. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “95” of the Second Amended Complaint.

96. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “96” of the Second Amended Complaint.

97. Denies the allegations in paragraph “97” of the Second Amended Complaint.

98. Denies the allegations in paragraph “98” of the Second Amended Complaint.

99. Denies the allegations in paragraph “99” of the Second Amended Complaint.

100. Denies the allegations in paragraph “100” of the Second Amended Complaint.

101. Denies the allegations in paragraph “101” of the Second Amended Complaint.

102. Denies the allegations in paragraph “102” of the Second Amended Complaint.

103. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations contained in paragraph “103” of the Second Amended Complaint.

104. Denies the allegations in paragraph “104” of the Second Amended Complaint.

105. Denies the allegations in paragraph “105” of the Second Amended Complaint.

106. Denies the allegations in paragraph “106” of the Second Amended Complaint.

107. Denies the allegations in paragraph “107” of the Second Amended Complaint.

9 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

108. Denies the allegations in paragraph “108” of the Second Amended Complaint.

109. Denies the allegations in paragraph “109” of the Second Amended Complaint.

110. Denies the allegations in paragraph “110” of the Second Amended Complaint.

111. Denies the allegations in paragraph “111” of the Second Amended Complaint.

112. Denies the allegations in paragraph “112” of the Second Amended Complaint.

113. Denies the allegations in paragraph “113” of the Second Amended Complaint.

114. Denies the allegations in paragraph “114” of the Second Amended Complaint.

115. Denies the allegations in paragraph “115” of the Second Amended Complaint.

116. Denies the allegations in paragraph “116” of the Second Amended Complaint.

117. Denies the allegations in paragraph “117” of the Second Amended Complaint.

118. Denies the allegations in paragraph “118” of the Second Amended Complaint.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENCE

119. Responding to paragraph “119” of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant

repeats and realleges the prior responses as if fully set forth herein.

120. Denies the allegations in paragraph “120” of the Second Amended Complaint.

121. Denies the allegations in paragraph “121” of the Second Amended Complaint.

122. Denies the allegations in paragraph “122” of the Second Amended Complaint.

123. Denies the allegations in paragraph “123” of the Second Amended Complaint.

124. Denies the allegations in paragraph “124” of the Second Amended Complaint.

125. Denies the allegations in paragraph “125” of the Second Amended Complaint.

126. Denies the allegations in paragraph “126” of the Second Amended Complaint.

127. Denies the allegations in paragraph “127” of the Second Amended Complaint.

10 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – OUTRAGE AND INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

128. Responding to paragraph “128” of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant

repeats and realleges the prior responses as if fully set forth herein.

129. Denies the allegations in paragraph “129” of the Second Amended Complaint.

130. Denies the allegations in paragraph “130” of the Second Amended Complaint.

131. Denies the allegations in paragraph “131” of the Second Amended Complaint.

CPLR 1603 – NO APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY

132. The allegations in paragraph “132” of the Second Amended Complaint state a legal

conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required,

Defendant denies the allegations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

133. The allegations set forth in paragraph “133” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

134. The allegations set forth in paragraph “134” of the Second Amended Complaint

require neither an admission nor denial. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Defendant

denies the allegations.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

135. All claims for relief in the Second Amended Complaint are barred by the applicable

statutes of limitations, including but not limited to CPLR 214.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

136. Plaintiff fails to present any facts demonstrating exceptional circumstances under

CPLR 214-g such that Plaintiff was prevented from asserting timely claims.
11

11 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

137. Plaintiff’s claim is barred on the ground that the revival provision in CPLR 214-g

is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as-applied as it violates SSD’s right to due process

of law under the United States and New York State Constitutions.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

138. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of laches due to the unreasonable delay

in providing notice of the alleged incident(s).

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

139. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver and

estoppel.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

140. Plaintiff’s claim is barred, in whole or in part, by documentary evidence.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

141. The alleged injuries suffered by Plaintiff were not proximately caused by actions

of SSD.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

142. The Second Amended Complaint, and each cause of action asserted, fails to set

forth facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against SSD and further

fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to the relief sought, or to any other relief whatsoever

from SSD.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

143. Any purported damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff are the result of the acts or

omissions of third persons over whom SSD had neither control nor responsibility, including

12 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

individuals who may be unassociated with SSD, and SSD expressly reserves the right to seek

indemnification for any liability incurred.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

144. The imposition of punitive damages would violate SSD’s right to due process and

equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and

the New York State Constitution as applied.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

145. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred, reduced, or in the alternative, is

unconstitutional insofar as it constitutes an excessive fine as provided in the Eighth Amendment

of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

146. Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages or exemplary damages fails to allege facts

sufficient to justify an award of such damages against SSD.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

147. In the event Plaintiff recovers a judgment against SSD for the cost of medical care,

loss of earnings, or other economic loss resulting from the events alleged to have occurred in the

Second Amended Complaint, SSD is entitled to a reduction in the amount of the award in favor of

Plaintiff and against SSD by the amount of past and future collateral source payments to or for the

benefit of Plaintiff of such loss, cost, and expense pursuant to CPLR 4545.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

148. The limitations of liability pursuant to Article 16 of the CPLR apply to any recovery

by the Plaintiff for any non-economic loss.

13 of 14
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/08/2022 11:11 AM INDEX NO. 506296/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2022

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

149. Plaintiff’s alleged injuries or damages described in the Second Amended Complaint

caused in whole or in part by the negligence or intentional or other culpable conduct of another

person or entity for whose acts were not the responsibility of SSD and over whom SSD had no

control, and without any negligence, intentional or other culpable act by or on the part of SSD or

SSD contributing thereto.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

150. Defendant reserves the right to file and serve additional defenses, as appropriate.

WHEREFORE, The Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic demands judgment against

Plaintiff, as follows:

i) Dismissing the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice;

ii) Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Uniondale, New York
April 8, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL FRITZ, P.C.

By: s/ Jana A. Schwartz
Domenique Camacho Moran
Irene A. Zoupaniotis
Jana A. Schwartz
Attorneys for Defendant
Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic
400 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
516.227.0700

FF\12505389.1
14 of 14

Case Info

Judge

Alexander M. Tisch Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 08, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 12, 2020

County

Parties

Anthony J. Acciarito Non Party
CAMACHO-MORAN, DOMENIQUE Attorney for the Defendant
Caroline Borrino Plaintiff
CHIARA, GIUSEPPE Attorney for the Defendant
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN Defendant
DOUMANIAN, ANELGA ARTUN Attorney for the Plaintiff
GALLAGHER, TIMOTHY MADIGAN Attorney for the Defendant
LYNCH, MICHAEL CHARLES Attorney for the Defendant
MARSH, JAMES R. Attorney for the Plaintiff
Marsh Law Firm Attorney for the Plaintiff
MERKL, NEIL M Attorney for the Defendant
MORRISON, RANDALL L Attorney for the Defendant
ORTIZ, ROBERT Attorney for the Defendant
ORTIZ, ROBERT Attorney for the Defendants
OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CHURCH AND SCHOOL Defendant
PCVA LAW Attorney for the Plaintiff
ROSOF, JEREMY S Attorney for the Defendant
ROSOF, JEREMY S Attorney for the Defendants
SCAHILL, FRANCIS J Attorney for the Defendant
SCAHILL, FRANCIS J Attorney for the Defendants
SCHWARTZ, JANA A Attorney for the Defendant
SISTERS OF ST. DOMINIC Defendant
SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH Defendant
WHITE, CHRISTOPHER JOHN Attorney
ZOUPANIOTIS, IRENE APOSTOLOU Attorney for the Defendant
FRANCES HATCH Attorney
DANIEL DRAPER Attorney
GIANNA GULLI Attorney
FRANK SCARDILLI Attorneys for Defendants
CAROL LYNCH Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SALLY MONTELEONE Attorney
NATHAN WERKSMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JORDAN MERSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JARED SCOTTO Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PATRICK GERAGHTY Attorneys for Defendants
CHARLES CORDOVA Attorneys for Defendants
MALLORY ALLEN Attorney
JOHN HANNIGAN Attorneys for Defendants
EDWARD KIM Attorneys for Defendants
James Wade Attorneys for Defendants
SHANNON GALLAGHER Attorney
JON SCAHILL Attorney
KELECHI ACHOLONU Attorney
JAMES SCAHILL Attorney
FRANCIS JUDGE Attorney
JAMES FLYNN Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Answer: Caroline Borrino v. Diocese Of Brooklyn, Our Lady Of Guadalupe Church And School, Sisters Of St. Joseph, Sisters Of St. Dominic

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties