STEPTON HOWARD v. METROPOLITAN NEW YORK SYNOD OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICAN (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered on or about June 4, 2025, which denied the motion of defendant Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America a/k/a Metropolitan New York Synod (Synod) to dismiss plaintiff Lisa Stepton–Howard's complaint against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against Synod.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 5, 2025, which denied the motion of defendant Synod to dismiss plaintiff Fred Torbert Jr.'s complaint against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against Synod.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

These two actions arise from alleged sexual abuse committed by two Lutheran pastors.  Plaintiff Torbert alleges abuse committed in 1978 by “Pastor Larry” when Torbert was a 14–year–old employee at a summer camp operated by St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx, New York. Plaintiff Stepton–Howard alleges abuse committed by “Pastor John Doe” at Trinity Lutheran Church located in Queens, New York, in 1968 when she was seven years old.  Plaintiffs state that “although the current operational status of [the entities where the abuse occurred] is unclear, upon information and belief, [they were] operated under the auspices of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America of which defendant Synod is a branch.”

Plaintiff Torbert alleges that defendant Synod owned and operated defendant Saint Peter's Church, of which Pastor Larry Doe was pastor.  Plaintiff Stepton–Howard alleges that defendant Pastor John Doe was an ordained minister of the Lutheran Church, and pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church.  Plaintiff Stepton–Howard does not allege that Synod owned and operated Trinity Lutheran Church.

The complaints both allege:(1) negligence in that Synod and Does 1–5 negligently hired, retained, supervised, and directed the abusers;  (2) gross negligence in that they knew or should have known that its pastors presented a risk;  (3) breach of fiduciary duty;  and (4) fraudulent concealment in that Synod concealed the abuse from the public and the identities of the abusers.

In both actions, Synod moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (a)(7) for dismissal in lieu of answering.  As relevant here, Synod argued that it was not in existence at the time of the abuse and thus it could not be liable.  In support, Synod submitted its Certificate of Incorporation, dated September 21, 1987.  The document provides that “The Presiding Officer and Clerk of the METROPOLITAN NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, an unincorporated Synod in convention ․ having jurisdiction over a number of Churches” had called a meeting and adopted a resolution resolving that “THE METROPOLITAN NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA shall become a corporation pursuant to Section 15 of the Religious Corporations Law of the State of New York under the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”  The resolution also states that the Synod “shall adopt any agreement or merger or consolidation that may be prescribed by an Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”

In opposition to Synod's motion, plaintiff Torbert argued that discovery was needed in order to ascertain whether Synod was a proper successor in interest to whatever corporate form was in existence when the abuse continued.  Plaintiff argued that Synod's claim that the actions must be dismissed because it did not exist in 1978 grossly oversimplified the issue of Synod's liability because it ignored the issue of successor liability.  Plaintiff submitted a document titled The Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Lutheran Church in America wherein it called the Synod's origin as “uniting three predecessor bodies.”  Plaintiff argued that he should be permitted to engage in discovery to cure any deficiencies in the pleading.

Plaintiff Stepton–Howard made the same arguments in opposition to Synod's motion.

Supreme Court denied Synod's motions, finding that “[b]ased on the limited information available to Plaintiff at this time, Plaintiff claims a good-faith basis to believe [Synod] is a successor in interest to the entity in existence when the abuse occurred.”  The court stated that this good faith basis “was formed, in part, by the Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which states that it officially began operation as a church body in 1988 ‘through the uniting of three predecessor bodies ․’ ”

Supreme Court should have granted Synod's CPLR 3211(a)(7) motions to dismiss the complaints against it because plaintiffs failed to specifically plead the successor-in-interest claim.  Moreover, discovery under CPLR 3211(d) is not warranted because plaintiffs pleaded only direct liability theories of recovery.