Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
AIDA CABRERE, Index No.: 951267/2021
Plaintiff,
-against-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
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.
Plaintiff, Aida Cabrere, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her First Amended
Complaint, amending by agreement of all parties of record pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) (Dkt. 70),
alleges:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Aida Cabrere, (“Plaintiff”) is an adult female, who was sexually abused
as a minor, under the age of 18, while residing in the State of New York. All or part of the abuse
alleged herein occurred in the State of New York.
2. Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese New York (“Archdiocese”) was and con-
tinues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized
and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do
1 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at
1011 First Avenue, New York, New York 10022.1
3. Defendant St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a Church of St. Cecilia was and
continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga-
nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed
to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business
at 120 East 106th Street, New York, New York 10029.
4. Defendant St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a Parish of St. Cecilia was and
continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga-
nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed
to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business
at 125 East 105th Street, New York, New York 10029.
5. St. Cecilia Catholic School was a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit
religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of
the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and
with a principal place of business at 220 East 106th Street, New York, New York 10029. Upon
information and belief, St. Cecilia Catholic School closed in 1991.
6. Commander John J. Shea Memorial School, one of two schools formerly associated
with St. Cecilia Parish, was a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation,
duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York,
licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of
1
Unless otherwise stated, allegations herein are made regarding all times relevant to this action and believed to be
true at all times relevant to this action.
2
2 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
business at 132 East 111th Street, New York, New York 10029. Upon information and belief,
Commander John J. Shea Memorial School closed in 1971.
7. Defendants St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a Church of St. Cecilia and St.
Cecilia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a Parish of St. Cecilia as well as the now-closed St. Cecilia
Catholic School, and Commander John J. Shea Memorial School will hereinafter be referred to
collectively as “St. Cecilia.”
8. Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas (“Sisters of Mercy”) was and continues
to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and
existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do
and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 400, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
9. Defendant Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, District of Eastern
North America (“Christian Brothers”) was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and
a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of
the laws of the State of New Jersey, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New
York. It acts and exists as one of the four districts included in the Lasallian Region of North
America, encompassing ministries and other organizations in New York, with a principal place of
business at 444-A Route 35 South, Eatontown, New Jersey 07724.
10. Defendant Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (“Redemptorists”) was and
continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga-
nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington, D.C.,
licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of
business at 3112 Seventh Street Northeast, Washington, D.C. 20017.
3
3 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
11. Defendants Does 1 – 5 are unknown agents whose identities will be provided when
they become known pursuant to CPLR § 1024.
12. Hereinafter, the Archdiocese, St. Cecilia, Sisters of Mercy, Christian Brothers, Re-
demptorists, and Does 1 – 5 will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
13. Reverend Raymond A. Whelan, C.S.S.R. (“Rev. Whelan”) was a Roman Catholic
priest, counselor, and/or teacher, under the direct supervision, authority, employ, and control of
the other Defendants at all times material hereto.
14. Unknown Father (“Fr. Doe”) was a Roman Catholic priest, counselor, and/or
teacher, under the direct supervision, authority, employ, and control of the other Defendants at all
times material hereto.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
15. Pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act (L 2019, ch. 11) (the “CVA”), a victim
of childhood sexual abuse in the State of New York whose claim was barred by the statute of
limitations is now revived. Plaintiff's CVA claim is timely under CPLR § 214-g and other relevant
orders, laws, and rules, as amended.
FACTS & ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
16. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
at length herein.
17. Upon information and belief, during all relevant periods Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe
was serving for, employed by, and/or acting in some capacity under the control and supervision of
Defendants.
18. From approximately 1956 to 1964, when Plaintiff was approximately 6 to 14 years
old and a student at St. Cecilia, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe engaged in unpermitted sexual contact
4
4 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
with Plaintiff in violation of at least one section of New York Penal Law Article 130 and/or §
263.05, or a predecessor statute that prohibited such conduct at the time of the abuse.
19. Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe sexually molested Plaintiff, while under the supervision
and/or authority of the other Defendants, which failed to report Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and/or
other priests to the criminal authorities; failed to urge Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s criminal prose-
cution; and/or failed to take any other action available and/or necessary to protect Catholic children
in New York, or elsewhere, such as Plaintiff, from sexual and physical assault by Rev. Whelan
and Fr. Doe.
20. Defendants were, and are, in a specialized position where they had knowledge that
Plaintiff did not. Defendants were in a position to have this knowledge because they had authority
over Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and acted as Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s employer, because De-
fendants were responsible for Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and because their policies mandated and
continue to mandate secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about Rev. Whelan and
Fr. Doe.
21. Plaintiff, on the other hand, was a minor child. As a child, Plaintiff was not in a
position to have information about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s molestation of other children or
Defendants’ knowledge of the dangers that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe posed to children, nor was
Plaintiff in a position to know that Defendants mandated that their employees keep such
knowledge from others, including children like Plaintiff.
22. Defendants made representations regarding safety directly to Plaintiff’s family, do-
ing so with the knowledge and intent that they would be communicated to the minor Plaintiff
through Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers’ words and actions. Defendants also had reason to believe
that the representations made to Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers would influence Plaintiff and
5
5 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
particularly that the representations would influence the amount and type of time spent alone with
Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s access to Plaintiff, and his ability to molest
Plaintiff.
23. Because of the authority, superiority, and influence that Defendants had, and con-
tinue to have, over her family, Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations.
24. Beyond the information that Defendants knew, or should have known, about Rev.
Whelan and Fr. Doe before Plaintiff was sexually abused, Defendants had opportunities to discover
the sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
25. Defendants knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, what
Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was doing to Plaintiff given the location of the abuse on Church grounds
in addition to the potentially numerous opportunities any of Defendants’ other employees or agents
would have had to catch Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe with other victims.
26. Defendants acts and omissions in failing to supervise Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, in
failing to control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s unfettered, private access to Plaintiff, in failing to
investigate the private contact with Plaintiff, failing to warn Plaintiff before or during her tenure
at St. Cecilia about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and their failure to report Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s
behavior to the proper authorities, or at a minimum, to Plaintiff’s parents, evidence a breach of
even the most basic duty of ordinary care.
27. The failure to act on the abusive behavior and inappropriate boundary-breaking
conduct by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe with minors before Plaintiff was sexually abused was willful,
wanton, and reckless.
28. Further, the Defendants’ acts and omissions were taken to avoid Church scandal,
and thereby, protect its membership numbers and donations.
6
6 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
29. Had Plaintiff, or Plaintiff’s family, known what Defendants knew or should have
known – that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe were a suspected danger to children before Plaintiff was
first molested by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe – Plaintiff would not have been sexually assaulted.
30. The acts and omissions of Defendants, as plead herein, represents conduct, which
is willful, outrageous, reckless, and deliberately indifferent to the health, safety, and welfare of
children in general and Plaintiff in particular.
31. Plaintiff was placed in the complete care of Defendants by, and/or consent of, her
parents under their guise of religiosity of Defendants’ instruction, institutions, agents, and employ-
ees. As a minor, Plaintiff was a person who would foreseeably be harmed by such acts and omis-
sions described throughout this Complaint and below.
32. Defendants were responsible for assigning, transferring, and/or suspending all
clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, to and from parishes within the dioceses of
the State of New York.
33. Defendants, and Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe acting as an agent and/or employee,
solicited funds and support from their parishioners, students and others participating in Church-
provided services through memberships, assessments, direct appeals, and/or tuition.
34. A special relationship and/or parish-parishioner relationship existed between Plain-
tiff and Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified
herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe.
35. Defendants explicitly and implicitly represented to Plaintiff that each of their
priests, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, were benevolent and trustworthy stewards of the
Church who would only act in the best interests of the children whom they served.
7
7 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
36. Plaintiff entrusted her well-being to the Defendants who had corresponding obliga-
tion to be solicitous for, as well as protective of the Plaintiff in exercise of their positions of supe-
riority and purported authority.
37. Defendants invited and encouraged Plaintiff, as a minor child, to accept each priest
assigned to positions within the Church to be in good standing, including Rev. Whelan and Fr.
Doe, as one who was worthy of and who had the responsibility for Plaintiff’s physical and spiritual
safety, thereby inducing Plaintiff to entrust herself to the company and care of Rev. Whelan and
Fr. Doe and subject herself to the authority of and instructions from Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe
while on Defendants’ property and/or in the accompaniment of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe.
38. Defendants’ agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified in
this Complaint, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and other employees of Defendants worked together as
religious officers who were obligated to arrange, render, and coordinate the religious and educa-
tional care of the children enrolled in their institution, including those for Plaintiff which included
oversight of and total responsibility for the protection, prevention of the acts of sexual, mental,
and physical abuse by their clergy member Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and reporting their
knowledge of the dangers of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe.
39. Defendants employed and/or held out as their agents and/or employees as specifi-
cally described and/or identified herein all employees implicit in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by
Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe along with any other employee who was involved in the cover-up of the
sexual abuse experienced by Plaintiff who were also acting within the course and scope of their
respective employment, master-servant, and/or agency relationships with Defendants over whom
it had direct control and/or a right of control and/or whose actions they ratified as the principals.
8
8 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
40. The employees discussed herein, including but not limited to, Rev. Whelan and Fr.
Doe, were the agents and/or employees of Defendants, and acted within the course of employment
and/or in the scope of his respective authority.
41. Any action and/or omission committed by any agent and/or employee of the De-
fendants and Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, along with any employee involved in the acts and omis-
sions involved in the cover-up and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, imposes liability upon the Defendants
under the laws of agency, respondeat superior, vicarious liability, master-servant, and right of
control, in the State of New York.
42. Plaintiff, as a minor, relied on the religious and educational services provided by
Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified herein,
notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and as described in detail in the “Facts” section of this Com-
plaint. Nevertheless, Defendants collectively failed to provide Plaintiff with appropriate care and
attention required by the necessary standard of care.
43. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants and their agents and/or employees as spe-
cifically described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, was a factual cause
of and/or placed Plaintiff at an increased risk of harm for and/or was a substantial factor in causing
and/or caused the severe, permanent, incurable, and grievous injuries and damages described
and/or identified herein, most notably the sexual abuse inflicted by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe,
which is addressed in detail herein.
44. The severe, permanent, incurable, and grievous injuries described in the “Facts”
section of this Complaint, which Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer were caused solely
and exclusively by the conduct of Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically
9
9 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and were due in no manner
whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff.
45. Further, the Defendants’ actions were taken to avoid Church scandal, and thereby,
protect its business, membership numbers, and donations.
46. As a proximate and direct result of the aforesaid willful, wanton, and reckless con-
duct of the Defendants, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages in an amount to be determined
at trial.
47. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, negligence, gross negli-
gence, and conduct described herein, the Plaintiff sustained both physical and emotional injuries
and suffered damages. Plaintiff’s injuries and recoverable damages include the following:
a. Conscious pain and suffering;
b. Physical, psychological, and financial injuries, physical injuries to Plaintiff’s
body, including, but not limited to, multiple bodily injuries, injuries suffered at
the times of the sexual abuse, subsequent mental anxiety, anguish, shame, in-
ternal injuries, and other injuries;
c. Severe past, present, and future mental anguish and trauma, necessitating psy-
chiatric and medical care and treatment in the past, present, and/or future;
d. Loss of faith and mistrust of the Church and its institutions;
e. Physical ailments, including, but not limited to headaches, nausea, loss of sleep,
and physical shock to the nervous system;
f. Physical injuries to Plaintiff’s body including, but not limited to, multiple bod-
ily injuries, injuries suffered at the times of the sexual abuse, subsequent mental
anxiety, anguish, shame, internal injuries, and other injuries;
g. Grievous mental and bodily pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional dis-
tress, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, embarrassment,
loss of self-esteem, disgrace, guilt, and shame;
h. Past, present, and future physical pain and suffering;
i. Past, present, and future medical expenses;
10
10 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
j. Past, present, and future lost wages, loss of earnings and earning capacity;
k. Punitive damages;
l. Exemplary damages;
m. Litigation costs, expenses, and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees; and,
n. Any and all other damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
48. The amount of damages sought exceeds the jurisdiction of all lower courts which
would otherwise have jurisdiction.
49. This action falls within exceptions to Article 16 of the CPLR.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENCE)
50. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
at length herein.
51. At all times material hereto, pursuant to common law and Restatement (Second) of
Agency § 219, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was acting as the agent of the Defendants, because while
engaging in the acts of grooming and abuse with Plaintiff, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was in the
course and scope of his respective employment with the Defendants and/or was able to accomplish
the sexual abuse because of his job-created authority and role as an agent of Defendants.
52. To the extent it is found that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was acting outside of the
scope of his employment for some or all of the conduct described herein, pursuant to Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 317, Defendants had a duty, as masters of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, to exercise
reasonable care to control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe while he was on Defendants’ premises, even
if acting outside the scope of his employment, to prevent Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe from sexually
abusing Plaintiff.
11
11 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
53. At all times material hereto, Defendants by and through their agents and employees,
accepted responsibility for the well-being of Plaintiff, a minor child, while on the premises and/or
engaged in activities involving Defendants’ employees and agents.
54. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from known and/or
foreseeable risks of harm while they arranged, rendered, and coordinated the religious care of
Plaintiff attending services at St. Cecilia, and/or participating in the activities provided by Defend-
ants on premises like schooling, mass, and continuing Catholic education, amongst others.
55. Given the extensive understanding and experience the Church, at all levels, had
with the sexual abuse of minors by clergy, Defendants knew, or should have known, that unfet-
tered, private contact between priests and minors engaged in activities that were at Church loca-
tions and/or Church-funded, represented an unreasonable risk of harm to these minors.
56. Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s actions were so similar to many other priests, Defend-
ants, acting with any level of care and curiosity or concern, should have known what warning signs
to look for in order to invite additional scrutiny over Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, including inter
alia, his singling out of Plaintiff.
57. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe spending
time with Plaintiff would create an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
58. Given the type of abuse and the location in which the abuse occurred, Defendants,
if exhibiting any degree of care or curiosity, should have inquired further into the relationship Rev.
Whelan and Fr. Doe had with Plaintiff to uncover the abuse—the very purpose of the “should have
known” standard of care which Defendants breached in this case through their acts and omissions.
59. Defendants breached their duties described above by, inter alia:
a. failing to recognize Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s behaviors and the warning signs
thereof;
12
12 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
b. failing to recognize or discover Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s sexual abuse of
Plaintiff during the individual instance wherein Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was
able to have unfettered private access to Plaintiff to perform the acts described
above;
c. failing to exercise reasonable care to monitor the priest-parishioner relationship
for signs of grooming and failing to take any steps to limit or prevent unfettered,
private access by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe to Plaintiff, thereby providing him
ample opportunity to sexually abuse Plaintiff;
d. failing to implement policies and procedures that prevented child sexual abuse,
rather than promoting secrecy;
e. failing to use reasonable care to investigate Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe after hir-
ing him and/or assigning him to St. Cecilia to care for children; and
f. failing to train employees and agents in the prevention and reporting of sexual
abuse against minors.
60. Given Defendants’ long-standing, mandated policies and procedures Defendants
knew, or with the exercise of reasonable care should have known, before and/or during the pen-
dency of Plaintiff’s tenure at St. Cecilia, that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe had previously committed
acts of sexual abuse against minors and was grooming and then sexually abusing Plaintiff.
61. On information and belief, Defendants are in the possession of documents, data,
and/or personal knowledge regarding facts verifying the deviant sexual behavior and tendencies
of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe from before and/or during the sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
62. The kind of conduct that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe engaged in was foreseeable
specifically to these Defendants, at all times material hereto, based on the extensive and specialized
knowledge and experience the Defendants had regarding the sexual abuse of children within the
Church.
63. Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted gross negligence as the breaches of their
duty of care evidenced reckless disregard of the safety and welfare of Plaintiff and other innocent
13
13 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
children where Defendant took no steps to control or stop Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe despite abusing
Plaintiff on Defendants’ premises. Instead, Defendants sought to suppress the known and tolerated
activities of their clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, through a failure to act,
failure to warn, failure to investigate, and failure to report.
64. Defendants were more concerned with their reputation than protecting the afore-
mentioned children, including Plaintiff. Such conduct engaged in by Defendants constitutes gross
negligence as it was, and is, wanton and willful, and in reckless disregard of the safety of innocent
children, including Plaintiff.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, and their
agents, servants, workers, or employees’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered sexual abuse, as
well as the ensuing physical, mental, psychological, economic and noneconomic injuries, and dam-
ages discussed herein, which Plaintiff still continues to suffer.
66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions discussed above,
Plaintiff suffered significant injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
67. In addition to direct acts and omissions by Defendants constituting negligence as
described above, Defendants are also vicariously liable for their agents, employees, and represent-
atives’ acts, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(NEGLIGENT RETENTION AND SUPERVISION)
68. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
at length herein.
69. Defendants were responsible for decisions relating to supervising, assigning, trans-
ferring, and/or suspending all clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, within their
Roman Catholic institutions, including entities such as St. Cecilia.
14
14 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
70. At all times material hereto, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was in an employer-em-
ployee relationship with Defendants when Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe sexually abused Plaintiff.
71. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to control, supervise, train, and retain
Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe in a number of respects, including but not limited to:
a. failure to use reasonable care to investigate Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe prior to
assignments at Church institutions, including St. Cecilia, at which he was to
provide care for and teach minors;
b. failure to train employees and agents, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, in
the prevention and reporting of sexual abuse against minors;
c. failure to supervise and control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe while he carried out
his priestly assignments at Defendants’ institutions, including St. Cecilia, and
while at his Church-provided living accommodations; and
d. failure to make reasonable decisions about whether or not to retain and/or report
Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe once Defendants knew of inappropriate acts and be-
havior committed by him.
72. Defendants’ above-described business policies and procedures of concealing, and
ultimately promoting, the widespread knowledge and acts of childhood sexual abuse by its clergy
members provided Defendants with the actual and/or constructive knowledge that Rev. Whelan
and Fr. Doe was engaged in this deviant behavior.
73. With the exercise of reasonable care, Defendants knew or should have known be-
fore and/or during the pendency of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s tenure within their Church institu-
tions, including St. Cecilia, that he was a risk to sexually abuse minor children like Plaintiff.
74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent retention and supervision
of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered significant injuries and damages
in an amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing causes of action, Plaintiff demands judgment
against Defendants, on the above causes of action, in an amount to be determined at trial for a
15
15 of 16
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022
sum that will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for alleged injuries and damages; that Plain-
tiff recovers actual damages; that Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages; that
Plaintiff recovers punitive damages; and for such other further relief; together with costs and
disbursements of this action; and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
Dated: New York, New York By: /s/ David P. Matthews
July 25, 2022 David P. Matthews
DMATTHEWS@THEMATTHEWSLAWFIRM.COM
Liza L. Roys*
LROYS@THEMATTHEWSLAWFIRM.COM
2905 Sackett St.
Houston, Texas 77098
(713) 522-5250
D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, PC FREESE & GOSS
Peter W. Smith Tim K. Goss
PWS@DJD.LAW TIM@FREESEANDGOSS.COM
1501 Broadway, 12th Floor Peter de la Cerda*
New York, New York 10036 PETER@FREESEANDGOSS.COM
(866) 327-2952 3500 Maple Ave., Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219
(214) 761-6610
Attorneys and Co-counsel for Plaintiff
* Texas counsel will be seeking pro hac vice admission.
16
16 of 16
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK AIDA CABRERE, Index No.: 951267/2021 Plaintiff, -against- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 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. Plaintiff, Aida Cabrere, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her First Amended Complaint, amending by agreement of all parties of record pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) (Dkt. 70), alleges: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Aida Cabrere, (“Plaintiff”) is an adult female, who was sexually abused as a minor, under the age of 18, while residing in the State of New York. All or part of the abuse alleged herein occurred in the State of New York. 2. Defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese New York (“Archdiocese”) was and con- tinues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do 1 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 1011 First Avenue, New York, New York 10022.1 3. Defendant St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a Church of St. Cecilia was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga- nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 120 East 106th Street, New York, New York 10029. 4. Defendant St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a Parish of St. Cecilia was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga- nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 125 East 105th Street, New York, New York 10029. 5. St. Cecilia Catholic School was a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 220 East 106th Street, New York, New York 10029. Upon information and belief, St. Cecilia Catholic School closed in 1991. 6. Commander John J. Shea Memorial School, one of two schools formerly associated with St. Cecilia Parish, was a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of 1 Unless otherwise stated, allegations herein are made regarding all times relevant to this action and believed to be true at all times relevant to this action. 2 2 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 business at 132 East 111th Street, New York, New York 10029. Upon information and belief, Commander John J. Shea Memorial School closed in 1971. 7. Defendants St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Church f/k/a Church of St. Cecilia and St. Cecilia and Holy Agony Parish f/k/a Parish of St. Cecilia as well as the now-closed St. Cecilia Catholic School, and Commander John J. Shea Memorial School will hereinafter be referred to collectively as “St. Cecilia.” 8. Defendant Sisters of Mercy of the Americas (“Sisters of Mercy”) was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 400, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. 9. Defendant Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, District of Eastern North America (“Christian Brothers”) was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly organized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York. It acts and exists as one of the four districts included in the Lasallian Region of North America, encompassing ministries and other organizations in New York, with a principal place of business at 444-A Route 35 South, Eatontown, New Jersey 07724. 10. Defendant Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (“Redemptorists”) was and continues to be a Roman Catholic organization and a non-profit religious corporation, duly orga- nized and existing under, pursuant to, and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington, D.C., licensed to do and/or transact business within the State of New York, and with a principal place of business at 3112 Seventh Street Northeast, Washington, D.C. 20017. 3 3 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 11. Defendants Does 1 – 5 are unknown agents whose identities will be provided when they become known pursuant to CPLR § 1024. 12. Hereinafter, the Archdiocese, St. Cecilia, Sisters of Mercy, Christian Brothers, Re- demptorists, and Does 1 – 5 will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.” 13. Reverend Raymond A. Whelan, C.S.S.R. (“Rev. Whelan”) was a Roman Catholic priest, counselor, and/or teacher, under the direct supervision, authority, employ, and control of the other Defendants at all times material hereto. 14. Unknown Father (“Fr. Doe”) was a Roman Catholic priest, counselor, and/or teacher, under the direct supervision, authority, employ, and control of the other Defendants at all times material hereto. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 15. Pursuant to the New York Child Victims Act (L 2019, ch. 11) (the “CVA”), a victim of childhood sexual abuse in the State of New York whose claim was barred by the statute of limitations is now revived. Plaintiff's CVA claim is timely under CPLR § 214-g and other relevant orders, laws, and rules, as amended. FACTS & ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 16. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 17. Upon information and belief, during all relevant periods Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was serving for, employed by, and/or acting in some capacity under the control and supervision of Defendants. 18. From approximately 1956 to 1964, when Plaintiff was approximately 6 to 14 years old and a student at St. Cecilia, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe engaged in unpermitted sexual contact 4 4 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 with Plaintiff in violation of at least one section of New York Penal Law Article 130 and/or § 263.05, or a predecessor statute that prohibited such conduct at the time of the abuse. 19. Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe sexually molested Plaintiff, while under the supervision and/or authority of the other Defendants, which failed to report Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and/or other priests to the criminal authorities; failed to urge Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s criminal prose- cution; and/or failed to take any other action available and/or necessary to protect Catholic children in New York, or elsewhere, such as Plaintiff, from sexual and physical assault by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe. 20. Defendants were, and are, in a specialized position where they had knowledge that Plaintiff did not. Defendants were in a position to have this knowledge because they had authority over Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and acted as Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s employer, because De- fendants were responsible for Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and because their policies mandated and continue to mandate secrecy with respect to the sort of knowledge learned about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe. 21. Plaintiff, on the other hand, was a minor child. As a child, Plaintiff was not in a position to have information about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s molestation of other children or Defendants’ knowledge of the dangers that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe posed to children, nor was Plaintiff in a position to know that Defendants mandated that their employees keep such knowledge from others, including children like Plaintiff. 22. Defendants made representations regarding safety directly to Plaintiff’s family, do- ing so with the knowledge and intent that they would be communicated to the minor Plaintiff through Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers’ words and actions. Defendants also had reason to believe that the representations made to Plaintiff’s parents/caregivers would influence Plaintiff and 5 5 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 particularly that the representations would influence the amount and type of time spent alone with Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s access to Plaintiff, and his ability to molest Plaintiff. 23. Because of the authority, superiority, and influence that Defendants had, and con- tinue to have, over her family, Plaintiff believed and relied upon these misrepresentations. 24. Beyond the information that Defendants knew, or should have known, about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe before Plaintiff was sexually abused, Defendants had opportunities to discover the sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 25. Defendants knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, what Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was doing to Plaintiff given the location of the abuse on Church grounds in addition to the potentially numerous opportunities any of Defendants’ other employees or agents would have had to catch Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe with other victims. 26. Defendants acts and omissions in failing to supervise Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, in failing to control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s unfettered, private access to Plaintiff, in failing to investigate the private contact with Plaintiff, failing to warn Plaintiff before or during her tenure at St. Cecilia about Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and their failure to report Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s behavior to the proper authorities, or at a minimum, to Plaintiff’s parents, evidence a breach of even the most basic duty of ordinary care. 27. The failure to act on the abusive behavior and inappropriate boundary-breaking conduct by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe with minors before Plaintiff was sexually abused was willful, wanton, and reckless. 28. Further, the Defendants’ acts and omissions were taken to avoid Church scandal, and thereby, protect its membership numbers and donations. 6 6 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 29. Had Plaintiff, or Plaintiff’s family, known what Defendants knew or should have known – that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe were a suspected danger to children before Plaintiff was first molested by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe – Plaintiff would not have been sexually assaulted. 30. The acts and omissions of Defendants, as plead herein, represents conduct, which is willful, outrageous, reckless, and deliberately indifferent to the health, safety, and welfare of children in general and Plaintiff in particular. 31. Plaintiff was placed in the complete care of Defendants by, and/or consent of, her parents under their guise of religiosity of Defendants’ instruction, institutions, agents, and employ- ees. As a minor, Plaintiff was a person who would foreseeably be harmed by such acts and omis- sions described throughout this Complaint and below. 32. Defendants were responsible for assigning, transferring, and/or suspending all clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, to and from parishes within the dioceses of the State of New York. 33. Defendants, and Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe acting as an agent and/or employee, solicited funds and support from their parishioners, students and others participating in Church- provided services through memberships, assessments, direct appeals, and/or tuition. 34. A special relationship and/or parish-parishioner relationship existed between Plain- tiff and Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe. 35. Defendants explicitly and implicitly represented to Plaintiff that each of their priests, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, were benevolent and trustworthy stewards of the Church who would only act in the best interests of the children whom they served. 7 7 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 36. Plaintiff entrusted her well-being to the Defendants who had corresponding obliga- tion to be solicitous for, as well as protective of the Plaintiff in exercise of their positions of supe- riority and purported authority. 37. Defendants invited and encouraged Plaintiff, as a minor child, to accept each priest assigned to positions within the Church to be in good standing, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, as one who was worthy of and who had the responsibility for Plaintiff’s physical and spiritual safety, thereby inducing Plaintiff to entrust herself to the company and care of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and subject herself to the authority of and instructions from Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe while on Defendants’ property and/or in the accompaniment of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe. 38. Defendants’ agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified in this Complaint, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and other employees of Defendants worked together as religious officers who were obligated to arrange, render, and coordinate the religious and educa- tional care of the children enrolled in their institution, including those for Plaintiff which included oversight of and total responsibility for the protection, prevention of the acts of sexual, mental, and physical abuse by their clergy member Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe and reporting their knowledge of the dangers of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe. 39. Defendants employed and/or held out as their agents and/or employees as specifi- cally described and/or identified herein all employees implicit in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe along with any other employee who was involved in the cover-up of the sexual abuse experienced by Plaintiff who were also acting within the course and scope of their respective employment, master-servant, and/or agency relationships with Defendants over whom it had direct control and/or a right of control and/or whose actions they ratified as the principals. 8 8 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 40. The employees discussed herein, including but not limited to, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, were the agents and/or employees of Defendants, and acted within the course of employment and/or in the scope of his respective authority. 41. Any action and/or omission committed by any agent and/or employee of the De- fendants and Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, along with any employee involved in the acts and omis- sions involved in the cover-up and sexual abuse of Plaintiff, imposes liability upon the Defendants under the laws of agency, respondeat superior, vicarious liability, master-servant, and right of control, in the State of New York. 42. Plaintiff, as a minor, relied on the religious and educational services provided by Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and as described in detail in the “Facts” section of this Com- plaint. Nevertheless, Defendants collectively failed to provide Plaintiff with appropriate care and attention required by the necessary standard of care. 43. The acts and/or omissions of Defendants and their agents and/or employees as spe- cifically described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, was a factual cause of and/or placed Plaintiff at an increased risk of harm for and/or was a substantial factor in causing and/or caused the severe, permanent, incurable, and grievous injuries and damages described and/or identified herein, most notably the sexual abuse inflicted by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, which is addressed in detail herein. 44. The severe, permanent, incurable, and grievous injuries described in the “Facts” section of this Complaint, which Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer were caused solely and exclusively by the conduct of Defendants and their agents and/or employees as specifically 9 9 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 described and/or identified herein, notably Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, and were due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on the part of Plaintiff. 45. Further, the Defendants’ actions were taken to avoid Church scandal, and thereby, protect its business, membership numbers, and donations. 46. As a proximate and direct result of the aforesaid willful, wanton, and reckless con- duct of the Defendants, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 47. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts, negligence, gross negli- gence, and conduct described herein, the Plaintiff sustained both physical and emotional injuries and suffered damages. Plaintiff’s injuries and recoverable damages include the following: a. Conscious pain and suffering; b. Physical, psychological, and financial injuries, physical injuries to Plaintiff’s body, including, but not limited to, multiple bodily injuries, injuries suffered at the times of the sexual abuse, subsequent mental anxiety, anguish, shame, in- ternal injuries, and other injuries; c. Severe past, present, and future mental anguish and trauma, necessitating psy- chiatric and medical care and treatment in the past, present, and/or future; d. Loss of faith and mistrust of the Church and its institutions; e. Physical ailments, including, but not limited to headaches, nausea, loss of sleep, and physical shock to the nervous system; f. Physical injuries to Plaintiff’s body including, but not limited to, multiple bod- ily injuries, injuries suffered at the times of the sexual abuse, subsequent mental anxiety, anguish, shame, internal injuries, and other injuries; g. Grievous mental and bodily pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional dis- tress, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, guilt, and shame; h. Past, present, and future physical pain and suffering; i. Past, present, and future medical expenses; 10 10 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 j. Past, present, and future lost wages, loss of earnings and earning capacity; k. Punitive damages; l. Exemplary damages; m. Litigation costs, expenses, and reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees; and, n. Any and all other damages to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. 48. The amount of damages sought exceeds the jurisdiction of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction. 49. This action falls within exceptions to Article 16 of the CPLR. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENCE) 50. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 51. At all times material hereto, pursuant to common law and Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was acting as the agent of the Defendants, because while engaging in the acts of grooming and abuse with Plaintiff, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was in the course and scope of his respective employment with the Defendants and/or was able to accomplish the sexual abuse because of his job-created authority and role as an agent of Defendants. 52. To the extent it is found that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was acting outside of the scope of his employment for some or all of the conduct described herein, pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 317, Defendants had a duty, as masters of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, to exercise reasonable care to control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe while he was on Defendants’ premises, even if acting outside the scope of his employment, to prevent Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe from sexually abusing Plaintiff. 11 11 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 53. At all times material hereto, Defendants by and through their agents and employees, accepted responsibility for the well-being of Plaintiff, a minor child, while on the premises and/or engaged in activities involving Defendants’ employees and agents. 54. Defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from known and/or foreseeable risks of harm while they arranged, rendered, and coordinated the religious care of Plaintiff attending services at St. Cecilia, and/or participating in the activities provided by Defend- ants on premises like schooling, mass, and continuing Catholic education, amongst others. 55. Given the extensive understanding and experience the Church, at all levels, had with the sexual abuse of minors by clergy, Defendants knew, or should have known, that unfet- tered, private contact between priests and minors engaged in activities that were at Church loca- tions and/or Church-funded, represented an unreasonable risk of harm to these minors. 56. Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s actions were so similar to many other priests, Defend- ants, acting with any level of care and curiosity or concern, should have known what warning signs to look for in order to invite additional scrutiny over Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, including inter alia, his singling out of Plaintiff. 57. Defendants knew, or should have known, that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe spending time with Plaintiff would create an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 58. Given the type of abuse and the location in which the abuse occurred, Defendants, if exhibiting any degree of care or curiosity, should have inquired further into the relationship Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe had with Plaintiff to uncover the abuse—the very purpose of the “should have known” standard of care which Defendants breached in this case through their acts and omissions. 59. Defendants breached their duties described above by, inter alia: a. failing to recognize Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s behaviors and the warning signs thereof; 12 12 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 b. failing to recognize or discover Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff during the individual instance wherein Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was able to have unfettered private access to Plaintiff to perform the acts described above; c. failing to exercise reasonable care to monitor the priest-parishioner relationship for signs of grooming and failing to take any steps to limit or prevent unfettered, private access by Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe to Plaintiff, thereby providing him ample opportunity to sexually abuse Plaintiff; d. failing to implement policies and procedures that prevented child sexual abuse, rather than promoting secrecy; e. failing to use reasonable care to investigate Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe after hir- ing him and/or assigning him to St. Cecilia to care for children; and f. failing to train employees and agents in the prevention and reporting of sexual abuse against minors. 60. Given Defendants’ long-standing, mandated policies and procedures Defendants knew, or with the exercise of reasonable care should have known, before and/or during the pen- dency of Plaintiff’s tenure at St. Cecilia, that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe had previously committed acts of sexual abuse against minors and was grooming and then sexually abusing Plaintiff. 61. On information and belief, Defendants are in the possession of documents, data, and/or personal knowledge regarding facts verifying the deviant sexual behavior and tendencies of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe from before and/or during the sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 62. The kind of conduct that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe engaged in was foreseeable specifically to these Defendants, at all times material hereto, based on the extensive and specialized knowledge and experience the Defendants had regarding the sexual abuse of children within the Church. 63. Defendants’ acts and omissions constituted gross negligence as the breaches of their duty of care evidenced reckless disregard of the safety and welfare of Plaintiff and other innocent 13 13 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 children where Defendant took no steps to control or stop Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe despite abusing Plaintiff on Defendants’ premises. Instead, Defendants sought to suppress the known and tolerated activities of their clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, through a failure to act, failure to warn, failure to investigate, and failure to report. 64. Defendants were more concerned with their reputation than protecting the afore- mentioned children, including Plaintiff. Such conduct engaged in by Defendants constitutes gross negligence as it was, and is, wanton and willful, and in reckless disregard of the safety of innocent children, including Plaintiff. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, and their agents, servants, workers, or employees’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff suffered sexual abuse, as well as the ensuing physical, mental, psychological, economic and noneconomic injuries, and dam- ages discussed herein, which Plaintiff still continues to suffer. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions discussed above, Plaintiff suffered significant injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 67. In addition to direct acts and omissions by Defendants constituting negligence as described above, Defendants are also vicariously liable for their agents, employees, and represent- atives’ acts, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT RETENTION AND SUPERVISION) 68. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 69. Defendants were responsible for decisions relating to supervising, assigning, trans- ferring, and/or suspending all clergy members, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, within their Roman Catholic institutions, including entities such as St. Cecilia. 14 14 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 70. At all times material hereto, Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was in an employer-em- ployee relationship with Defendants when Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe sexually abused Plaintiff. 71. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to control, supervise, train, and retain Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe in a number of respects, including but not limited to: a. failure to use reasonable care to investigate Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe prior to assignments at Church institutions, including St. Cecilia, at which he was to provide care for and teach minors; b. failure to train employees and agents, including Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe, in the prevention and reporting of sexual abuse against minors; c. failure to supervise and control Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe while he carried out his priestly assignments at Defendants’ institutions, including St. Cecilia, and while at his Church-provided living accommodations; and d. failure to make reasonable decisions about whether or not to retain and/or report Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe once Defendants knew of inappropriate acts and be- havior committed by him. 72. Defendants’ above-described business policies and procedures of concealing, and ultimately promoting, the widespread knowledge and acts of childhood sexual abuse by its clergy members provided Defendants with the actual and/or constructive knowledge that Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe was engaged in this deviant behavior. 73. With the exercise of reasonable care, Defendants knew or should have known be- fore and/or during the pendency of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe’s tenure within their Church institu- tions, including St. Cecilia, that he was a risk to sexually abuse minor children like Plaintiff. 74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent retention and supervision of Rev. Whelan and Fr. Doe as discussed above, Plaintiff suffered significant injuries and damages in an amount to be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing causes of action, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, on the above causes of action, in an amount to be determined at trial for a 15 15 of 16 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/25/2022 08:13 PM INDEX NO. 951267/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/25/2022 sum that will fully and fairly compensate Plaintiff for alleged injuries and damages; that Plain- tiff recovers actual damages; that Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages; that Plaintiff recovers punitive damages; and for such other further relief; together with costs and disbursements of this action; and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES Dated: New York, New York By: /s/ David P. Matthews July 25, 2022 David P. Matthews DMATTHEWS@THEMATTHEWSLAWFIRM.COM Liza L. Roys* LROYS@THEMATTHEWSLAWFIRM.COM 2905 Sackett St. Houston, Texas 77098 (713) 522-5250 D’ARCY JOHNSON DAY, PC FREESE & GOSS Peter W. Smith Tim K. Goss PWS@DJD.LAW TIM@FREESEANDGOSS.COM 1501 Broadway, 12th Floor Peter de la Cerda* New York, New York 10036 PETER@FREESEANDGOSS.COM (866) 327-2952 3500 Maple Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 761-6610 Attorneys and Co-counsel for Plaintiff * Texas counsel will be seeking pro hac vice admission. 16 16 of 16