Scahill Law Group P.C., Bethpage (Keri A. Wehrheim of counsel), for appellants.

Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Melville (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about October 5, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants General Conference of The United Methodist Church, The Judicial Council of The United Methodist Church, and the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church (collectively, appellants) to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss plaintiff's negligence and premises liability claims as against appellants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually abused by a pastor while attending church activities at a United Methodist Church from around 1964 to 1965. Appellants moved to dismiss the complaint as against them under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground that they are non jural entities that are not amenable to suit (see e.g. Honeyman v Curiosity Works, Inc., 120 AD3d 1302, 1303 [2d Dept 2014]), and under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action as against them. Supreme Court denied, as premature, so much of the motion as was based on CPLR 3211 (a) (8), and denied so much of the motion as was based on CPLR 3211 (a) (7) on the basis, among others, that the complaint stated a cause of action for negligence; negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and direction; and premises liability.

For the reasons stated in D.F. v General Conference of the United Methodist Church (235 AD3d 532 [1st Dept 2025]), decided simultaneously with this decision, we find that Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, appellants' motion under CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint as against them. Similarly, by alleging that appellants "knew or should have known" of the pastor's criminal proclivities, plaintiff sufficiently alleged notice so as to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and direction (see e.g. SHC-MG-25 Doe v Archdiocese of N.Y., 223 AD3d 579, 580 [1st Dept 2024]; Ark 55 v Archdiocese of N.Y., 222 AD3d 572, 572 [1st Dept 2023]).

However, for the reasons stated in D.F., plaintiff's negligence and premises liability causes of action "fall within the ambit" of his claim for negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and direction, and should have been dismissed as duplicative (see M.D. v YMCA of the USA, 235 AD3d 530, 531 [1st Dept 2025] [decided simultaneously herewith; internal quotation marks omitted]). Concur—Kern, J.P., Friedman, Kennedy, Scarpulla, Rosado, JJ.