Complaint,Petition: Gerald Roxbury v. Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts Of America a/k/a Queens Borough Council, Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America, All Saints Lutheran Church Of Southwest Queens-Todos Los Santos f/k/a St. Luke's Evangelical Lutheran Church

On August 04, 2021 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Gerald Roxbury, and All Saints Lutheran Church Of Southwest Queens-Todos Los Santos F K A St. Luke'S Evangelical Lutheran Church, Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts Of America A K A Queens Borough Council, Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts Of America, for Torts - Child Victims Act in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GERALD ROXBURY SUMMONS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff,
Index No: _______________
v.
CHILD VICTIMS ACT
GREATER NEW YORK COUNCILS, PROCEEDING
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
a/k/a QUEENS BOROUGH COUNCIL, Plaintiff designates
GREATER NEW YORK New York County
COUNCILS, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA as place of trial
AND ALL SAINTS LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
SOUTHWEST QUEENS-TODOS LOS SANTOS Basis of venue is
f/k/a ST. LUKE’S EVANGELICAL Defendant(s)’s
LUTHERAN CHURCH place of business

Defendant(s).

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT(S):

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to Answer the attached Complaint in this action and
to serve upon Plaintiff’s attorneys a copy of your Answer, or, if the Complaint is not served with
this Summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff’s attorney within twenty (20) days
after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after
the service is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New
York.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be
taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

Dated: August 4, 2021 ANDREOZZI + FOOTE
s/ Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq.
Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq.
NY Bar # 5772165
ben@vca.law
Nathaniel L. Foote, Esq.
NY Bar #5832282
nate@vca.law
4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel: (717) 525-9124 | Fax: (717) 525-9143

Page 1 of 13

1 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF NEW YORK

GERALD ROXBURY COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff,
Index No: _______________
v.
CHILD VICTIMS ACT
GREATER NEW YORK COUNCILS, PROCEEDING
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
a/k/a QUEENS BOROUGH COUNCIL,
GREATER NEW YORK
COUNCILS, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
AND ALL SAINTS LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
SOUTHWEST QUEENS-TODOS LOS SANTOS
f/k/a ST. LUKE’S EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH

Defendant(s).

Plaintiff by and through his attorneys, Andreozzi + Foote, as and for his Complaint in this

matter against Defendant(s) GREATER NEW YORK COUNCILS, BOY SCOUTS OF

AMERICA a/k/a QUEENS BOROUGH COUNCIL, GREATER NEW YORK COUNCILS,

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA (“Council” and/or “Defendant(s)”) and ALL SAINTS

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF SOUTHWEST QUEENS-TODOS LOS SANTOS f/k/a ST.

LUKE’S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH (“Church” and/or “Defendant(s)”),

hereby alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant(s) pursuant to New York’s Child

Victims Act (“CVA”) (N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g).

Parties

2. Plaintiff is an adult resident of VIRGINIA.

Page 2 of 13

2 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

3. At all relevant times, Defendant(s) used and relied on employees/volunteers who

sexually abused children within the Council, including MICHAEL BORESCH, leader(s),

employee(s), agent(s), scout(s), and/or volunteer(s) with Defendant(s) who sexually abused

Plaintiff (“Perpetrator(s)”).

4. In approximately 1965 - 1967, Plaintiff was sexually abused by Perpetrator(s).

5. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNCIL, was/is a New York entity organized

under New York law that transacted business in this County. Defendant(s) is currently based at

475 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, ROOM 600, NEW YORK, NY 10115.

6. At all relevant times Defendant CHURCH, was/is a New York entity organized

under New York Law that transacted business in this County. Defendant(s) is currently based at

164-2 GOETHALS AVENUE, JAMAICA, NY 11432.

7. At all relevant times the BSA authorized Defendant(s) to charter, sponsor, and

operate Boy Scout Troops, camps, Cub Scout Troops, and other types of Troops throughout their

region, including Plaintiff’s Troop.

8. Defendant(s) would select the leaders and volunteers of each Boy Scout Troop,

camp, and Cub Scout Troop in its region.

9. Defendant(s) had the right to control the means and manner of the staffing,

operation, and oversight of any Boy Scout camp, Troop, Cub Scout Troop, or other type of Troop

in its region.

10. In exchange for BSA's name, programming, and endorsement, the leaders,

volunteers, and members of Defendant(s), paid the BSA an annual membership fee, including the

leaders, volunteers, and members of each Troop.

Page 3 of 13

3 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

11. At all relevant times Defendant(s) was a local council and/or chartering

organization of the BSA that acted as an agent of the BSA as to the Boy Scout camps, Troops, Cub

Scout Troops, and other Troops under its jurisdiction within the BSA, including that of Plaintiff.

12. At all relevant times Defendant(s) owned and operated several Boy Scout Camps

in their region, and they hired, supervised, and retained the staff, leaders, and volunteers who

operated, coordinated, ran, and supervised the camp(s), including Perpetrator.

Introduction

13. Starting in the early 1900s, the Boy Scouts of America ("BSA") knew that its Scout

leaders, volunteers, and members were using their positions to groom and to sexually abuse

children. By 1935, BSA had removed almost 1,000 men from Scouting due to sexual issues.

14. BSA refers to its internal files on such men as its “perversion” or “ineligible

volunteer” files, which BSA has tried to keep a secret.

15. BSA’s own expert in another case testified that the files from 1944 through 2016

contain the names of 7,819 Scout leaders and volunteers who have been accused of child sexual

abuse.

16. Despite decades of knowledge that Scout programs were a magnet for child

molesters, the Defendant(s) failed to take reasonable steps to protect children from being sexually

abused.

17. BSA actively concealed the widespread sexual abuse of young boys that occurred

as a direct result of its supposed leaders, volunteers, and employees. BSA did not want the public

to know of the proliferation of child sex abuse in Scouting.

18. BSA recklessly disregarded the abuse of children and chose to protect its reputation

and wealth over those who deserved protection.

Page 4 of 13

4 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

19. For decades thousands of children were sexually abused by Boy Scout leaders,

volunteers, and members. The Plaintiff in this lawsuit is one of those children sexually abused

because of BSA's wrongful conduct.

20. BSA is administered through 272 local councils, including the Defendant(s).

21. Defendant(s) shared the knowledge of abuse as described above with BSA.

Jurisdiction and Venue

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant(s) pursuant to N.Y.

C.P.L.R. § 301 and § 302.

23. This Court, as a court of general jurisdiction, has subject matter jurisdiction over

this action.

24. Venue in this County is proper pursuant to CPLR § 503 because the Defendant(s)

conduct business in this County.

Facts

25. As a child, Plaintiff joined a scout troop within the jurisdiction of Defendant(s).

26. When Plaintiff joined, neither he, nor his guardians, had any idea that Scouting had

been infiltrated by sexual abusers.

27. Had Plaintiff’s guardians known this, they would not have permitted Plaintiff to

participate in Scouting.

28. As stated, Plaintiff was sexually abused by Perpetrator(s).

29. The Defendant(s) knew or should have known that Perpetrator(s) was an abuser

who posed a risk of harm to young Scouts like Plaintiff.

30. As a direct result of the Defendant(s)’ conduct described herein, Plaintiff suffered

and will continue to suffer as follows:

Page 5 of 13

5 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

a. Severe and permanent emotional distress, including physical manifestations of

emotional distress;

b. Deprivation of the full enjoyment of life;

c. Expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling;

and,

d. Loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity.

Causes of Action

First Cause of Action
Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision

31. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth throughout this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

32. Defendant(s) owed a duty of care to all minor persons, including Plaintiff, who

were likely to encounter Perpetrator(s) in his role as employee, agent, servant, and/or volunteer of

Defendant(s).

33. Defendant(s) owed a duty of care to all minor persons, including Plaintiff, to ensure

Perpetrator(s) did not use his position to injure minors by sexual assault, abuse, and/or sexual

contact.

34. Defendant(s) had an express and/or implied duty to provide a reasonably safe

environment for Plaintiff and assumed the duty to protect and care for him.

35. Defendant(s) negligently, grossly negligently, and/or recklessly hired and retained

Perpetrator(s) though they knew or should have known that Perpetrator(s) posed a threat of harm

to minors.

Page 6 of 13

6 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

36. Defendant(s) negligently, grossly negligently, and/or recklessly hired and retained

Perpetrator(s) with actual or constructive knowledge of Perpetrator(s)’s propensity for the type of

behavior which resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries in this action.

37. Defendant(s) failed to reasonably investigate Perpetrator(s)’s history of sexual

abuse and misconduct, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of

Perpetrator(s)’s propensity for child sexual abuse.

38. Defendant(s) should have made an appropriate investigation of Perpetrator(s) and

failed to do so, which would have revealed the unsuitability of Perpetrator(s) for

employment/volunteer service and continued employment/volunteer service, and it was

unreasonable for Defendant(s) to employ and retain Perpetrator(s) in light of the information they

knew or should have known.

39. Defendant(s) negligently hired and retained Perpetrator(s) in a position where he

had access to children and could foreseeably cause harm which Plaintiff would not have been

subjected to had Defendant(s) taken reasonable care.

40. In failing to timely remove Perpetrator(s) from working with children or terminate

the employment of Perpetrator(s), Defendant(s) failed to exercise the degree of care that a

reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

41. Defendant(s) failed to adequately supervise the activities of Perpetrator(s).

42. Had Defendant(s) adequately supervised the activities of Perpetrator(s) they could

have discovered and prevented further inappropriate sexual misconduct.

43. The Plaintiff’s sexual abuse by Perpetrator(s) was foreseeable, i.e.,Defendant(s)

were on notice of prior similar incidents and Plaintiff’s sexual abuse was the proximate result of

Defendant(s)’ negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of Perpetrator(s).

Page 7 of 13

7 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

44. Perpetrator(s)’s acts described herein were undertaken, and/or enabled by, and/or

during the course, and/or within the scope of Perpetrator(s)’s employment, appointment,

assignment, and/or agency with Defendant(s).

45. Defendant(s) permitted, and/or intentionally failed, and/or neglected to prevent,

negligent, and/or grossly negligent conduct, and/or allowed other tortious conduct by persons,

whether or not their servants, and/or agents, and/or employees, upon premises or with

instrumentalities under their control.

46. Defendant(s) allowed the acts of omission, and/or commission, and/or any or all of

the allegations set forth in this Complaint to occur.

47. Defendant(s)’ actions were negligent, grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious,

reckless, and/or outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant(s)’ actions and omissions, Plaintiff

suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, as described herein.

49. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendant(s) is/are liable to the Plaintiff, jointly,

severally, and/or in the alternative, liable to the Plaintiff for compensatory damages and for

punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

Second Cause of Action
Negligence/Gross Negligence/Recklessness

50. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges every allegation set forth throughout this Complaint

as if fully set forth herein.

51. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff from

injury.

52. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty of care because Defendant(s) had a special

relationship with Plaintiff. Defendant(s) also had a duty arising from the special relationship that

Page 8 of 13

8 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

existed with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s parents, and other parents of young, innocent, vulnerable children

to properly train and supervise their agents.

53. Defendant(s)’ special relationship arose because of the high degree of vulnerability

of the children entrusted to their care. As a result of this high degree of vulnerability and risk of

sexual abuse inherent in such a special relationship, Defendant(s) had a duty to establish measures

of protection not necessary for persons who are older and better able to safeguard themselves.

54. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because each

Defendant also had a special relationship with Perpetrator(s).

55. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they solicited youth

and parents for participation in their youth programs; encouraged youth and parents to have the

youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff;

promoted their facilities and programs as being safe for children; held their agents, including

Perpetrator(s), out as safe to work with children; encouraged parents and children to spend time

with their agents; and/or encouraged their agents, including Perpetrator(s), to spend time with,

interact with, and recruit children.

56. As a result of Plaintiff being a minor, and by Defendant(s) undertaking the care and

guidance of the Plaintiff, Defendant(s) also held a position of empowerment over Plaintiff.

57. Defendant(s), by holding themselves out as being able to provide a safe

environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this position of empowerment.

58. Defendant(s), through their employees, exploited this power over Plaintiff and,

thereby, put the minor Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse.

59. Defendant(s) entered an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff

and provide a reasonably safe environment for children.

Page 9 of 13

9 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

60. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty to properly supervise Plaintiff to prevent harm

from foreseeable dangers.

61. Defendant(s) had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under

their control as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances.

62. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty to properly supervise Plaintiff to prevent harm

from generally foreseeable dangers.

63. Defendant(s) owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because

Defendant(s) invited Plaintiff onto their property and Perpetrator(s) posed a dangerous condition

on Defendant(s)’ property.

64. Defendant(s) breached their duties to Plaintiff.

65. Defendant(s) failed to use ordinary care in determining whether their facilities were

safe and/or determining whether they had enough information to represent their facilities as safe.

66. Defendant(s)’ breach of their duties include, but are not limited to:

a. failure to supervise and protect Plaintiff from a known danger;

b. failure to have sufficient policies and procedures in place to prevent child
sex abuse;

c. failure to properly implement policies and procedures to prevent child sex
abuse;

d. failure to take reasonable measures to ensure that policies and procedures
to prevent child sex abuse were working;

e. failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sex
abuse;

f. failure to investigate risks of child molestation;

g. failure to properly train employees/volunteers, including, on the risks,
dangers, and signs of sexual abuse;

h. failure to have any outside agency test their safety procedures;

Page 10 of 13

10 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

i. failure to protect the children in their programs from child sex abuse;

j. failure to adhere to the applicable standard of care for child safety;

k. failure to investigate the amount and type of information necessary to
represent the institutions, programs, leaders, and people as safe;

l. failure by relying upon mental health professionals, and/or failure by
relying on people who claimed that they could treat child molesters;

m. Failure to warn Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s family about the risk of harm that
Perpetrator(s) posed to Plaintiff;

n. Failing to warn Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s family about the risks of child sexual
abuse in Scouting;

o. Failing to report known and/or suspected abuse of children by
Perpetrator(s) and/or their other agents to the police and law enforcement.

67. Defendant(s), by and through their agents, servants, and/or employees, became

aware, or should have become aware of Perpetrator(s)’s propensity to commit sexual abuse and of

the risk to Plaintiff’s safety.

68. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that they did not have sufficient

information about whether children in their care were safe.

69. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that there was a risk of child sex abuse

for children participating in Scouting programs and activities.

70. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that they did not have enough

information about whether or not there was a risk of child sex abuse for children participating in

Scouting programs and activities.

71. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that Defendant(s) had numerous agents

who had sexually molested children.

Page 11 of 13

11 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

72. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that child molesters have a high rate of

recidivism.

73. Defendant(s) knew or should have known that there was a specific danger of child

sex abuse for children.

74. Defendant(s) negligently, grossly negligently, and/or recklessly deemed

Perpetrator(s) was fit to work with children; and/or that any previous suitability problems

Perpetrator(s) had were fixed and cured; and/or that Perpetrator(s) would not sexually molest

children; and/or that Perpetrator(s) would not injure children.

75. Defendant(s)’ actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff.

76. Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim.

77. Defendant(s)’ actions were negligent, grossly negligent, willful, wanton, malicious,

reckless, and/or outrageous in their disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant(s)’ actions and omissions, Plaintiff

suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, as described herein.

79. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant(s) is/are liable to the Plaintiff, jointly,

severally, and/or in the alternative, liable to the Plaintiff for compensatory damages and for

punitive damages, together with interest and costs.

JURY DEMAND

80. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]

Page 12 of 13

12 of 13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2021 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 950880/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2021

WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant(s) on each cause of

action as follows:

a) Awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial, in an amount

that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have

jurisdiction;

b) Awarding punitive damages to the extent permitted by law;

c) Awarding prejudgment interest to the extent permitted by law;

d) Awarding costs and fees of this action, including attorneys’ fees, to the extent

permitted by law; and

e) Awarding such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: August 4, 2021
ANDREOZZI + FOOTE
s/ Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq.
Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq.
NY Bar # 5772165
ben@vca.law
Nathaniel L. Foote, Esq.
NY Bar ## 5832282
nate@vca.law
4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel: (717) 525-9124 | Fax: (717) 525-9143

Page 13 of 13

13 of 13

Case Info

Judge

George J. Silver Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 04, 2021

Case Filing Date

August 04, 2021

County

Parties

All Saints Lutheran Church of Southwest Queens-Todos Los Santos f/k/a St. Luke's Evangelical Lutheran Church Defendant
ANDREOZZI, BENJAMIN DAVID Attorney for the Plaintiff
Gerald Roxbury Plaintiff
Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America a/k/a Queens Borough Council, Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America Defendant
HALEVI, ADI Attorney for the Defendant
KENNY, MICHAEL LEO Attorney for the Defendant
O'BRIEN, RICHARD THOMAS Attorney for the Defendant
NATHANIEL FOOTE Attorney

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

Complaint,Petition: Gerald Roxbury v. Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts Of America a/k/a Queens Borough Council, Greater New York Councils, Boy Scouts of America, All Saints Lutheran Church Of Southwest Queens-Todos Los Santos f/k/a St. Luke's Evangelical Lutheran Church

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties