| N.Y. App. Div. | Nov 19, 1997
—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance
The court erred, however, in dismissing the complaint against the Diocese of Buffalo, New York (Diocese), the Bishop of the Diocese and President of the Diocesan Corporation (Bishop), the Chancellor and Vicar General of the Diocese and Secretary of the Diocesan Corporation (Vicar General), and the Parish. The complaint states a cause of action against those defendants for negligent retention or supervision of Reverend S. (see, Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese, 229 AD2d 159, 164-165, cert denied — US —, 118 S. Ct. 413" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1997-11-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/monroe-v-missouri-pacific-railroad-9167478?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9167478">118 S Ct 413; Doe v Hartz, 970 F Supp 1375, 1427-1432; Moses v Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310" court="Colo." date_filed="1993-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moses-v-diocese-of-colorado-1201592?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1201592">863 P2d 310, 323-329, cert denied 511 U.S. 1137" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1994-05-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/diocese-of-colorado-v-moses-9132837?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9132837">511 US 1137; Destefano v Grabrian, 763 P.2d 275" court="Colo." date_filed="1988-10-17" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/destefano-v-grabrian-1281182?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1281182">763 P2d 275, 286-288 [Colo]; Does 1—9 v Compcare, Inc., 52 Wash App 688, 694-695, 763 P.2d 1237" court="Wash. Ct. App." date_filed="1988-11-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/john-does-v-compcare-inc-1281555?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1281555">763 P2d 1237, 1241-1242). Further, plaintiff should have the opportunity to conduct discovery concerning the knowledge of the Diocese and Parish, and their officers and administrators, regarding prior conduct of Reverend S. (see, CPLR 3211 [d]).
The three-year Statute of Limitations applies to a cause of action for negligent retention or supervision (see, CPLR 214 [5]), and defendants failed to establish that the action was commenced more than three years after the last act of alleged