T.B., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. [And Other Actions] (2025)

Amended Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered September 26, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York's motion for a protective order and, after in camera review, directed the Archdiocese to produce unredacted materials from the Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP), including names and identifying information of any alleged victim of abuse by the same priest, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in directing disclosure of the IRCP files, “regardless of when created or gathered” (McNierney v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 221 A.D.3d 489, 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2023];  see generally CPLR 3101[a]).  Plaintiff requested complaints against the priest or reports of inappropriate conduct, materials relating to the priest's assignment to the church and its associated school, information regarding the priest's supervision by the Archdiocese, and the Archdiocese's response to claims of sexual abuse by clergy members.  The IRCP files contained allegations by multiple individuals that the priest openly engaged in grooming behaviors with groups of young boys on church and school premises.  These complaints, therefore, are related to the issue of constructive notice of the priest's proclivities (see J.L. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 222 A.D.3d 483, 484, 202 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2023]).  The Archdiocese has denied exercising control over the priest, so the requested items may also provide information to rebut these disputed claims (see Doe v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 231 A.D.3d 436, 437, 221 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Furthermore, the files may provide information about “the Archdiocese's response to child abuse claims during that time frame and whether there was a patterned response” (McNierney, 221 A.D.3d at 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55).

The motion court also providently exercised its discretion in directing the disclosure of the names and identifying information of other alleged victims of abuse by the same priest accused by plaintiff (id.).  Contacting the priest's other alleged victims could lead to discovery of relevant and admissible evidence, including whether the Archdiocese was aware of the possible danger the priest posed, whether the priest engaged in patterns of abuse, and whether the Archdiocese acted reasonably to protect children from being sexually abused.  The Archdiocese did not demonstrate that this information was privileged or that disclosure was improper (see J.L. v. The Archdiocese of New York, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01771 [1st Dept. 2025];  Matter of All Plaintiffs in Child Victims Act NYC Litig. v. All Defendants in Child Victims Act NYC Litig., 200 A.D.3d 476, 479, 160 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2021];  see also Harmon v. Diocese of Albany, 204 A.D.3d 1270, 1272, 167 N.Y.S.3d 601 [3d Dept. 2022]).  While the names of victims of other alleged abusers within the organization may be properly redacted when disclosing personnel files and other materials relevant to the general handling of sex abuse complaints, the identities of victims allegedly harmed by the same abuser must be disclosed upon a plaintiff's request (see Harmon, 204 A.D.3d at 1272, 167 N.Y.S.3d 601;  Melfe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, N.Y., 196 A.D.3d 811, 812, 151 N.Y.S.3d 233 [3d Dept. 2021]).