Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
AIDA CABRERE, Index No.: 951267/2021
Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT
-against-
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE NEW YORK;
ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a
CHURCH OF ST. CECILIA; ST. CECILIA AND HOLY
AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECILIA;
SISTERS OF MERCY OF THE AMERICAS;
INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE
CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, THE LASALLIAN
REGION OF NORTH AMERICA; INSTITUTE OF
THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS,
DISTRICT OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA;
CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY
REDEEMER; and DOES 1 – 5 whose identities are
unknown to Plaintiff,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
SUSAN A. ROMANO, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State
of New York, hereby affirms the truth of the following under penalty of perjury, premised upon
the supporting papers and exhibits and the papers contained by movant’s aforesaid attorneys and
all prior proceedings heretofore had herein:
1. I am a member of the firm FRENCH & CASEY, LLP, the attorneys of record for
defendant, ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a CHURCH OF ST. CECILIA;
ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECILIA (hereinafter “ST.
CECILIA”) in the above-entitled action and, as such, am fully familiar with the facts and
circumstances of this matter.
1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
2. This affirmation is submitted in support of the instant application seeking an Order
striking all prejudicial terms, language, assertions and allegations from the Complaint. More
specifically, striking use of the phrases “pedophile priests”, “pedophilic priests”, “pedophilic priest
problem”, “pedophilic behaviors”, “pedophilic tendencies”, “pedophile activities”, and the terms
“perpetrator, “abuser” and “molester”, and striking the prejudicial language in paragraphs 18-27.
NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.
Procedural History
3. This action was commenced by the service and filing of a Summons and Complaint.
Id. A stipulation was executed extending ST. CECILIA’S time to answer or move to February 18,
2022. NYSCEF Doc. No. 40. ST. CECILIA filed its Verified Answer to the Complaint on
February 18, 2022. NYSCEF Doc. No. 57.
4. By letter dated December 14, 2021, ST. CECILIA requested that certain scandalous
and prejudicial phrases and allegations be withdrawn. This letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit
“A”. To date, no response to this letter has been received, necessitating the instant cross-motion.
4. The Archdiocese of New York moved pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024. NYSCEF
Doc. No. 45 and NYSCEF Doc. No. 46. This motion is returnable on March 31, 2022. Id. The
procedural history and all arguments set forth in that motion, and supporting affirmation of Sabrina
D. Ball, Esq., dated February 14, 2022, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
All Scandalous Assertions and Prejudicial Language Should be Stricken
5. The prejudicial, inflammatory, and inadmissible language and allegations asserted
in the Complaint should be stricken pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024. According to CPLR Rule 3024
(b), “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a
pleading”.
2
2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
6. The Complaint contains scandalous accusations against the global Catholic Church,
which are unnecessary, irrelevant and impermissible. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. The allegations speak
of conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse throughout the Church. Id. In particular, the use of the term
“perpetrator”, “abuser”, and “molester” to refer to the unidentified tortfeasor is not necessary to
establish the elements of plaintiff’s causes of action, and serve no purpose other than to prejudice
the Court and the trier of fact against the defendants. Soumayah v. Minnelli, 41 A.D. 3d 390 (1st
Dep’t 2007). In fact, Courts have held that the use of the term “perpetrator” to identify an alleged
tortfeasor is prejudicial and scandalous. Plaza at Patterson L.L.C. v. Clover Lake Holdings, Inc.,
51 A.D.931 (2d Dep’t 2008).
7. Similarly, the Court should strike the use of the terms “pedophile priests”,
“pedophilic priests”, “pedophilic priest problem”, “pedophilic behaviors”, “pedophilic
tendencies”, “pedophile activities”, throughout the Complaint. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.
8. The determination as to whether language is deemed “scandalous or prejudicial” is
whether the statements are considered “ . . . gratuitous and solely designed to inflame the reader
or listener.” Aronis v. TLC Vision Centers, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 576, 853 N.Y.S.2d 621 (2d Dep’t
2008).
9. Judge Kaplan in Platt v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bklyn, et al., index
number 518002/2021, found that the use of scandalous and prejudicial language fails “ . . . to
advance any . . . cause of action . . .” and therefore must be stricken. This Decision is annexed
hereto as Exhibit “B”.
10. Similarly, the purported historical and background alleged factual information
included in the Complaint is not relevant or necessary to advance plaintiff’s causes of action and
should be stricken. See Albany Law School v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation and
3
3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
Developmental Disabilities, 81 A.D.3d 145(2d Dep’t 2011); Soumayah v. Minnelli, supra,
(whether language is deemed scandalous or prejudicial is dependent upon whether the allegations
are relevant to a cause of action). These allegations contained in paragraphs 18 through 27 are not
specific to ST. CECILIA, and are therefore unnecessary and entirety prejudicial.
11. In order to prevail on a motion to strike certain scandalous and prejudicial language,
the Court evaluates the relevance of the subject language to the cause of action. If the language is
admissible at trial, it may be considered relevant. Albany Law School, 81 A.D.3d 145. In the
instant case, the narratives contained in the instant Complaint are unnecessary to prove the causes
of action asserted and are unduly prejudicial to the defendants. See Kinzer v. Bederman, 59 A.D.
496, 497 (2d Dep’t 2009).
12. Recently, in a case premised upon CPLR §214-g commenced in the United States
District Court, Judge Raymond J. Dearie granted the Diocese of Brooklyn’s motion to dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a cause of action with similar claims as contained in the subject
Complaint herein. Judge Dearie found that the broad nature of the prejudicial claims about
historical information of the Roman Catholic Church were not specific to the Diocese and therefore
the information regarding other diocese was not sufficient to impute knowledge of the alleged abuse
based upon alleged historical information of the global Roman Catholic Church. Murray III v.
Nazareth Regional High School f/k/a Nazareth High School, S.D.N.Y. Docket Number 20-CV-
1471(RJD)(RML) (Doc. No. 60, August 25, 2021). The references to purported directives from the
Holy See to all Roman Catholic Church leaders and the universal Roman Catholic Church bear no
relevance to plaintiff’s causes of action, and are unnecessary.
13. In addition, the language in paragraphs 18-27 which suggests that the defendants
hid their knowledge that certain clergy were unsafe, and failed to warn of the risk of sexual abuse
4
4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
by clergy are unsupported by any facts or circumstances specific to the causes of action alleged
herein. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1.
14. Accordingly, the prejudicial, scandalous and irrelevant language should be stricken
from the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the instant motion and
issue an Order striking all language in the Complaint that is scandalous and prejudicial, including
those allegations contained in paragraphs 18-27 of the Complaint, together with such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, the
presentation of the within Affirmation in Support or the contentions contained herein are not
frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR Section 130-1.1.(c).
Dated: New York, New York
March 16, 2022
Susan A. Romano
Susan A. Romano, Esq.
5
5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022
CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT
I hereby certify, pursuant to the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and the County
Courts, §202.5 and §202.8-b:
Format. The foregoing document was prepared on a computer using Microsoft
Word.
Type. A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows:
Name of typeface : Times New Roman
Point size : 12
Word Count. The total number of words in the foregoing Affirmation in Support is 1,261
words excluding the caption and signature block. This certificate was prepared in reliance on the
word-count function of Microsoft Word.
Dated: New York, New York
March 16, 2022
Susan A. Romano
Susan A. Romano, Esq.
6 of 6
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------X AIDA CABRERE, Index No.: 951267/2021 Plaintiff, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT -against- ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE NEW YORK; ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a CHURCH OF ST. CECILIA; ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECILIA; SISTERS OF MERCY OF THE AMERICAS; INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, THE LASALLIAN REGION OF NORTH AMERICA; INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, DISTRICT OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA; CONGREGATION OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER; and DOES 1 – 5 whose identities are unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------X SUSAN A. ROMANO, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the truth of the following under penalty of perjury, premised upon the supporting papers and exhibits and the papers contained by movant’s aforesaid attorneys and all prior proceedings heretofore had herein: 1. I am a member of the firm FRENCH & CASEY, LLP, the attorneys of record for defendant, ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY CHURCH f/k/a CHURCH OF ST. CECILIA; ST. CECILIA AND HOLY AGONY PARISH f/k/a PARISH OF ST. CECILIA (hereinafter “ST. CECILIA”) in the above-entitled action and, as such, am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 2. This affirmation is submitted in support of the instant application seeking an Order striking all prejudicial terms, language, assertions and allegations from the Complaint. More specifically, striking use of the phrases “pedophile priests”, “pedophilic priests”, “pedophilic priest problem”, “pedophilic behaviors”, “pedophilic tendencies”, “pedophile activities”, and the terms “perpetrator, “abuser” and “molester”, and striking the prejudicial language in paragraphs 18-27. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. Procedural History 3. This action was commenced by the service and filing of a Summons and Complaint. Id. A stipulation was executed extending ST. CECILIA’S time to answer or move to February 18, 2022. NYSCEF Doc. No. 40. ST. CECILIA filed its Verified Answer to the Complaint on February 18, 2022. NYSCEF Doc. No. 57. 4. By letter dated December 14, 2021, ST. CECILIA requested that certain scandalous and prejudicial phrases and allegations be withdrawn. This letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit “A”. To date, no response to this letter has been received, necessitating the instant cross-motion. 4. The Archdiocese of New York moved pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024. NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 and NYSCEF Doc. No. 46. This motion is returnable on March 31, 2022. Id. The procedural history and all arguments set forth in that motion, and supporting affirmation of Sabrina D. Ball, Esq., dated February 14, 2022, are adopted and incorporated by reference herein. All Scandalous Assertions and Prejudicial Language Should be Stricken 5. The prejudicial, inflammatory, and inadmissible language and allegations asserted in the Complaint should be stricken pursuant to CPLR Rule 3024. According to CPLR Rule 3024 (b), “[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading”. 2 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 6. The Complaint contains scandalous accusations against the global Catholic Church, which are unnecessary, irrelevant and impermissible. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. The allegations speak of conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse throughout the Church. Id. In particular, the use of the term “perpetrator”, “abuser”, and “molester” to refer to the unidentified tortfeasor is not necessary to establish the elements of plaintiff’s causes of action, and serve no purpose other than to prejudice the Court and the trier of fact against the defendants. Soumayah v. Minnelli, 41 A.D. 3d 390 (1st Dep’t 2007). In fact, Courts have held that the use of the term “perpetrator” to identify an alleged tortfeasor is prejudicial and scandalous. Plaza at Patterson L.L.C. v. Clover Lake Holdings, Inc., 51 A.D.931 (2d Dep’t 2008). 7. Similarly, the Court should strike the use of the terms “pedophile priests”, “pedophilic priests”, “pedophilic priest problem”, “pedophilic behaviors”, “pedophilic tendencies”, “pedophile activities”, throughout the Complaint. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. 8. The determination as to whether language is deemed “scandalous or prejudicial” is whether the statements are considered “ . . . gratuitous and solely designed to inflame the reader or listener.” Aronis v. TLC Vision Centers, Inc., 49 A.D.3d 576, 853 N.Y.S.2d 621 (2d Dep’t 2008). 9. Judge Kaplan in Platt v. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bklyn, et al., index number 518002/2021, found that the use of scandalous and prejudicial language fails “ . . . to advance any . . . cause of action . . .” and therefore must be stricken. This Decision is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”. 10. Similarly, the purported historical and background alleged factual information included in the Complaint is not relevant or necessary to advance plaintiff’s causes of action and should be stricken. See Albany Law School v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation and 3 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 Developmental Disabilities, 81 A.D.3d 145(2d Dep’t 2011); Soumayah v. Minnelli, supra, (whether language is deemed scandalous or prejudicial is dependent upon whether the allegations are relevant to a cause of action). These allegations contained in paragraphs 18 through 27 are not specific to ST. CECILIA, and are therefore unnecessary and entirety prejudicial. 11. In order to prevail on a motion to strike certain scandalous and prejudicial language, the Court evaluates the relevance of the subject language to the cause of action. If the language is admissible at trial, it may be considered relevant. Albany Law School, 81 A.D.3d 145. In the instant case, the narratives contained in the instant Complaint are unnecessary to prove the causes of action asserted and are unduly prejudicial to the defendants. See Kinzer v. Bederman, 59 A.D. 496, 497 (2d Dep’t 2009). 12. Recently, in a case premised upon CPLR §214-g commenced in the United States District Court, Judge Raymond J. Dearie granted the Diocese of Brooklyn’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cause of action with similar claims as contained in the subject Complaint herein. Judge Dearie found that the broad nature of the prejudicial claims about historical information of the Roman Catholic Church were not specific to the Diocese and therefore the information regarding other diocese was not sufficient to impute knowledge of the alleged abuse based upon alleged historical information of the global Roman Catholic Church. Murray III v. Nazareth Regional High School f/k/a Nazareth High School, S.D.N.Y. Docket Number 20-CV- 1471(RJD)(RML) (Doc. No. 60, August 25, 2021). The references to purported directives from the Holy See to all Roman Catholic Church leaders and the universal Roman Catholic Church bear no relevance to plaintiff’s causes of action, and are unnecessary. 13. In addition, the language in paragraphs 18-27 which suggests that the defendants hid their knowledge that certain clergy were unsafe, and failed to warn of the risk of sexual abuse 4 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 by clergy are unsupported by any facts or circumstances specific to the causes of action alleged herein. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. 14. Accordingly, the prejudicial, scandalous and irrelevant language should be stricken from the Complaint. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant the instant motion and issue an Order striking all language in the Complaint that is scandalous and prejudicial, including those allegations contained in paragraphs 18-27 of the Complaint, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, the presentation of the within Affirmation in Support or the contentions contained herein are not frivolous as defined in 22 NYCRR Section 130-1.1.(c). Dated: New York, New York March 16, 2022 Susan A. Romano Susan A. Romano, Esq. 5 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2022 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2022 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT I hereby certify, pursuant to the Uniform Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Courts, §202.5 and §202.8-b: Format. The foregoing document was prepared on a computer using Microsoft Word. Type. A proportionally spaced typeface was used, as follows: Name of typeface : Times New Roman Point size : 12 Word Count. The total number of words in the foregoing Affirmation in Support is 1,261 words excluding the caption and signature block. This certificate was prepared in reliance on the word-count function of Microsoft Word. Dated: New York, New York March 16, 2022 Susan A. Romano Susan A. Romano, Esq. 6 of 6