Legal Opinion
Mars v. Diocese of Rochester
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 7, 2003PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Robert J. Lunn, J.
Defendant, Diocese of Rochester, moves to dismiss the complaint as barred by the applicable statute of limitations *350and further that it fails to state a cause of action. (CPLR 3211 [a] [2], [5], [7]). Following oral argument at Special Term the court reserved decision.
The claims in this action arise out of the alleged sexual abuse of the 10 plaintiffs by Father Robert F. O’Neill between 1977 and 1986. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint as it applies to defendant Diocese sets forth four causes of action. These are: vicarious liability due to defendant’s…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Schmidt v. BishopDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Jordan v. Ford Motor Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Coopersmith v. GoldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Zoe G. v. Frederick F. G.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Doe v. Holy SeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Doe v. PopravakCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2017
- Rice, R. v. Diocese of Altoona-JohnstownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2021