DOE JP v. John S. Burke Catholic High School, Defendant–Respondent. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about December 12, 2024, which, after in camera review, directed defendant The Archdiocese of New York to disclose its Tribunal Laicization File concerning a former priest, subject to redactions of social security numbers and dates of birth, unanimously affirmed, without costs.¹

In this appeal arising out of the Child Victims Act, plaintiffs allege that Francis J. Stinner sexually abused them while he was a priest in the Archdiocese.  Plaintiffs further allege that although the Archdiocese was aware of Stinner's conduct against them, it nevertheless allowed him to continue in ministry.  Eventually, after appointing a committee to consider the issue of whether Stinner's acts had violated ecclesiastical law, the Archdiocese laicized Stinner in 2005.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the Archdiocese to produce an unredacted copy of the file of the Tribunal proceedings against Stinner.  Plaintiffs’ discovery demands are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence bearing upon whether Stinner engaged in a pattern of abuse, whether the Archdiocese knew or should have known of the danger Stinner posed, and whether the Archdiocese acted reasonably to protect children from sexual abuse (see Beals v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 242 A.D.3d 404, 240 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept. 2025];  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]).

Moreover, the Archdiocese did not demonstrate that the information sought implicated canon law or sacramental issues that might give rise to a First Amendment issue (see McNierney v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 221 A.D.3d 489, 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Although the records concern the church's removal of Stinner from the priesthood, the actions underlying this appeal do not contest or address that decision, nor do they address the religious doctrine upon which the decision was based (see Matter of Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahana, 9 N.Y.3d 282, 286, 849 N.Y.S.2d 463, 879 N.E.2d 1282 [2007];  ARK292 Doe v. Archdiocese of New York, 242 A.D.3d 501, 502, 243 N.Y.S.3d 377 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Rather, plaintiffs seek the file's contents to understand the Archdiocese's support or justification for laicizing Stinner, and as a potential source of information about the extent and timing of the church's knowledge.

We have considered the Archdiocese's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This appeal is proceeding under the John Doe JP docket number.  However, the lower court's order was applicable to twelve matters involving allegations of sexual abuse.  Plaintiffs-respondents have jointly submitted one brief.