Decided and Entered: April 07, 2026

Index No. 950730/21|Appeal No. 6307|Case No. 2025-03858|

Before: Scarpulla, J.P., Friedman, Shulman, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Archdiocese of New York's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or direction as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g, plaintiff alleges that she was sexually abused by defendant Edmond Parrakow, a priest who taught at defendant Aquinas High School, while she was a student there. Defendant Archdiocese's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied because the Archdiocese failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care. The Archdiocese's own documents and deposition testimony show that there is an issue of fact as to whether the Archdiocese operated and controlled, at least in part, Aquinas High School (see C.R. v Episcopal Diocese of N.Y., — AD3d —, —, 2025 NY Slip Op 05144, *1 [1st Dept 2025]; Schlesinger v Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic, 236 AD3d 1074, 1076 [2d Dept 2025]). The record shows that defendant Dominican Convent of Our Lady of the Rosary handled Aquinas High School's day-to-day operations, but also that the Archdiocese retained at least some degree of control over the school. For example, the Archdiocese submitted testimony showing that it set Fr. Parrakow's salary and benefits, approved the assignment of Fr. Parrakow to teach at Aquinas High School, and retained the authority to remove him.

As to the Archdiocese's argument that it lacked notice of Fr. Parrakow's propensity to abuse children, it relied on the same body of evidence as defendants Dominican Convent of Our Lady of the Rosary and Aquinas High School, which evidence we previously determined raises issues of fact as to notice (see S.A.W. v Archdiocese of N.Y., 246 AD3d 451, 451 [1st Dept 2026]). Here, the Archdiocese similarly failed to eliminate all issues of fact as to whether it had notice of Fr. Parrakow's propensity to abuse children before he abused plaintiff.

We have considered the Archdiocese's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 7, 2026