| Doe v Archdiocese of N.Y. |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 05683 [221 AD3d 451] |
| November 14, 2023 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| John Doe, Respondent, v Archdiocese of New York, Defendants, and The Capuchin Franciscan Friars, Also Known as The Capuchin Fathers Province of St. Mary and Another, et al., Appellants. |
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York (Concepcion A. Montoya of counsel), for The Capuchin Franciscan Friars, appellant.
Law Office of Roland R. Acevedo, New York (Roland R. Acevedo of counsel), for Timothy Jones, appellant.
Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP, New York (Catherine E. Anderson of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence Love, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2022, which denied the motions of defendant The Capuchin Franciscan Friars also known as Capuchin Fathers Province of St. Mary also known as and doing business as Province of St. Mary of the Capuchin Order and defendant Timothy Jones to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court correctly found that this action was filed within the time frame set forth in CPLR 214-g, as tolled by executive order (see Matter of M.C. v State of New York, 74 Misc 3d 682, 701-702 [Ct Cl 2022]; 9 NYCRR 8.202.72). The complaint, which alleged "unpermitted sexual contact with Doe in violation of at least one section of . . . Penal Law [a]rticle 130 and/or § 263.05," clearly pled conduct bringing the claim within the purview of CPLR 214-g. Plaintiff was not required to plead that the action was timely pursuant to that provision (see generally Iberdrola Energy Projects v MUFG Union Bank, N.A., 218 AD3d 409, 410 [1st Dept 2023]). Concur—Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.