V. K., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendants Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, Archdiocese of New York, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York (collectively, the Archdiocese) to produce a specified individual as an additional witness for examination before trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the Archdiocese to produce an additional witness to be examined before trial (see Nunez v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 71 A.D.3d 967, 968, 896 N.Y.S.2d 472 [2d Dept. 2010]).  Here, plaintiffs established that the Archdiocese's designated representative had insufficient knowledge and that his testimony was inadequate.  The transcripts of the designated representative's deposition indicate, among other things, that the witness was minimally prepared for his depositions, reviewed few documents in anticipation thereof, and did not know the extent to which the Archdiocese maintained files on its priests

Plaintiffs established that the specified individual sought as an additional witness – an expert in canon law identified as such by the Archdiocese's designated representative – may possess information which is material and necessary to their prosecution of the case (see id.).  The Archdiocese's designated representative testified that he was not aware whether the Archdiocese ever maintained any sub secreto files about priests.  The Archdiocese's policy on creating, maintaining, and destroying such files, whether such a file pertaining to the alleged abuser in these cases ever existed, and the contents and whereabouts of such a file if one did exist – all subjects with which the Archdiocese's designated representative was unfamiliar – are all valid lines of inquiry that plaintiffs may pursue by deposing the individual specified by Supreme Court (see Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa.Super. 138, 606 A.2d 905 [1992], appeal discontinued 531 Pa. 640, 611 A.2d 712 [1992]).

That the Archdiocese produced an affirmation pursuant to (Jackson v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 768, 586 N.Y.S.2d 952 [1st Dept. 1992]), in which the executive director of the Archdiocese's Archives and Records Management Office denied that the Archdiocese ever maintained secret files on its clergy and that any such file ever existed for the alleged abuser in these cases, does not foreclose further inquiry by plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are “not required to accept” the Archdiocese's “say-so that no documents exist”;  rather, they are “entitled to test that representation” themselves (McConkey v. Churchill Sch. & Ctr., 2025 WL 2390626, *1, 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 159978, *2 [S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2025, No. 24–cv–06091 (LJL)]).