Opinion
CA 03-01877.
Decided April 30, 2004.
Appeal from an order and judgment (one document) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered June 24, 2003. The order and judgment granted the motion of defendants Diocese of Rochester, Matthew H. Clark, Bishop of Rochester, and St. John's The Evangelist Church to dismiss the complaint against them and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN, BINGHAMTON (RONALD R. BENJAMIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
HARRIS BEACH LLP, PITTSFORD (PAUL J. YESAWICH, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, PINE, WISNER, AND LAWTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries arising from his alleged sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. The abuse allegedly occurred in 1968 or 1969, when plaintiff was a parishioner and altar boy at defendant St. John's The Evangelist Church (Church). At the time the action was commenced in December 2002, plaintiff was 47 years old. Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the Diocese of Rochester, Matthew H. Clark, Bishop of Rochester, and the Church (defendants) to dismiss the complaint against them as time-barred. Plaintiff has not "sufficiently alleged facts giving rise to a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant[s] ( see Doe v. Norwich R.C. Diocesan Corp., 268 F. Supp.2d 139, 149; Doe v. Hartz, 52 F. Supp.2d 1027, 1064), and thus [he] may not argue that defendant[s are] equitably estopped, based on [their] alleged nondisclosure or fraudulent concealment of facts, from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense ( see Hetelekides v. Ford Motor Co., 299 A.D.2d 868; Jordan v. Ford Motor Co., 73 A.D.2d 422, 424; see also Zoe G. v. Frederick F.G., 208 A.D.2d 675, 676-676)" ( Mars v. Diocese of Rochester, 6 A.D.3d 1120, 1121 [Apr. 30, 2004]). Recognizing plaintiff's allegations of duress based upon Catholic Church doctrine concerning the status and role of priests would require us "to venture into forbidden ecclesiastical terrain" ( Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 271 A.D.2d 494, 495 [internal quotation marks omitted]), and plaintiff has not otherwise alleged duress on the part of defendants sufficient to toll the statute of limitations ( see Steo v. Cucuzza, 213 A.D.2d 624, 626; Zoe G., 208 A.D.2d at 675). Finally, in view of our determination, we further conclude that the court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint because an action based on vicarious liability against the remaining defendant is likewise time-barred ( see Walsh v. Faxton-Children's Hosp., 192 A.D.2d 1106, 1107).