John Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.
Docket Index No. 70048/20|Appeal No. 6504|Case No. 2025-04883|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02723
- Docket numbers
- Index No70048/20Appeal No6504Case No2025-04883
Appeal from a Supreme Court order denying defendant's motion to vacate an in camera disclosure order and for a protective order
Summary
The First Department unanimously affirmed a Bronx County Supreme Court order that required the Archdiocese of New York to produce certain documents (with specified redactions) and denied the Archdiocese's request to vacate that order or to obtain a protective order. The court held that evidence about the Archdiocese's patterns or practices in responding to allegations of clergy sexual abuse is discoverable because it could show a deliberate, repetitive practice of silencing accusations and therefore bear on the Archdiocese's negligence in the plaintiff's specific abuse claim. The appellate court rejected the Archdiocese's other arguments without discussion.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Archdiocese must produce documents and information about nonparty priests accused of sexual abuse after in camera review
- Whether evidence of a pattern or practice by the Archdiocese in handling abuse allegations is discoverable as relevant to negligence in a plaintiff's individual abuse claim
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to vacate its prior disclosure order or to grant a protective order
Court's Reasoning
The court found that the plaintiff's claim relied not just on a generalized assertion that the Archdiocese created a permissive culture, but on an allegation that the Archdiocese engaged in a repeated practice of silencing accusations. Evidence of such deliberate and repetitive conduct is relevant to whether the Archdiocese was negligent in failing to act regarding the priest who allegedly abused the plaintiff. Because discoverability is broader than trial admissibility, the court properly allowed discovery after in camera review and properly declined to vacate or restrict that order.
Authorities Cited
- Nellenback v Madison County44 NY3d 329 (2025)
- Melfe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y.196 AD3d 811 (3d Dept 2021)
- S.B. v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y.242 AD3d 404 (1st Dept 2025)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- John Doe
- Defendant
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
- Defendant
- Saint Augustine — Our Lady of Victory Parish
- Attorney
- Patrick J. Lawless (Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP) — for appellant
- Attorney
- Gaetano A. D'Andrea (Laffey Bucci D'Andrea Reich & Ryan LLP) — for respondent
- Judge
- Kennedy, J.P.
- Judge
- Gesmer, J.
- Judge
- González, J.
- Judge
- Rosado, J.
- Judge
- Chan, J.
Key Dates
- Decision entered
- 2026-04-30
- Supreme Court order (in camera disclosure) entered
- 2025-04-22
- Order denying motion to vacate (appealed) entered
- 2025-08-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Comply with disclosure order
The Archdiocese should produce the ordered documents with the specified redactions as directed by the trial court and the appellate decision.
- 2
Consider further appellate review
If the Archdiocese wishes to continue contesting the order, it should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 3
Prepare to use discovered materials
Plaintiff's counsel should review the produced documents for evidence supporting the pattern-or-practice theory and prepare any necessary follow-up discovery or motion practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Archdiocese to produce certain documents about accused priests (with redactions) and denied the Archdiocese's request for a protective order.
- Why must the Archdiocese produce these documents?
- The court said evidence of a repeated practice by the Archdiocese in handling abuse allegations could be relevant to whether it was negligent in the plaintiff's specific case, so such information is discoverable after in camera review.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The Archdiocese must comply with the disclosure order in this case; the plaintiff may obtain evidence about other accused priests that could support his negligence claim.
- Can the Archdiocese seek further review?
- Yes; the Archdiocese could seek further appellate review (for example, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals), but this decision affirms the First Department's view that the disclosure order was proper.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
John Doe v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02723 John Doe v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. 2026 NY Slip Op 02723 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department John Doe, Plaintiff-Respondent, v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Also Known as Archdiocese of New York, Defendant-Appellant, Saint Augustine — Our Lady of Victory Parish, etc., et al., Defendants. Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026 Index No. 70048/20|Appeal No. 6504|Case No. 2025-04883| Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for appellant. Laffey Bucci D'Andrea Reich & Ryan LLP, Poughkeepsie (Gaetano A. D'Andrea of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about August 1, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, also known as Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to vacate an order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2025, after in camera review, directing the Archdiocese to produce certain documents with specified redactions, and for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining both to vacate its prior order and to grant the Archdiocese a protective order, and in directing the Archdiocese to produce documents and information related to certain nonparty priests accused of sexual abuse. Plaintiff's claim is not merely that the Archdiocese "'created a culture of laxity' that facilitated [the plaintiff's] abuse" ( Nellenback v Madison County , 44 NY3d 329, 336 [2025]). Rather, the argument is that the Archdiocese "engaged in a habit or pattern of conduct when notified with allegations of child sexual abuse committed by members of its clergy. . . . [E]vidence of the [Archd]iocese's deliberate and repetitive practice of silencing accusations, if any, is relevant and could permit an inference that the [Archd]iocese was negligent in this particular instance by failing to act when confronted with allegations of . . . abuse" by the priest alleged to have abused plaintiff in this case ( Melfe v Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y. , 196 AD3d 811, 814 [3d Dept 2021]; see S.B. v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. , 242 AD3d 404, 405 [1st Dept 2025]). Such evidence is discoverable regardless of whether it ultimately will be admissible at trial ( see e.g. Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave. , 127 AD3d 554, 555 [1st Dept 2015], affd 27 NY3d 985 [2016], quoting Mendelowitz v Xerox Corp. , 169 AD2d 300, 307 [1st Dept 1991]). We have considered the Archdiocese's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 30, 2026