Krystal G. v. Roman Catholic Diocese
34 Misc.3d 531 (2011)
Rule of Law:
A supervisor can be held directly liable for negligent supervision and retention if there is a sufficient supervisory relationship and the supervisor knew or should have known of the subordinate's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury, and this direct liability is not automatically extinguished by the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Facts:
- Krystal G., then 12 years old, was sexually assaulted and abused by Augusto Cortez, the assistant church pastor, at St. John the Baptist School on May 28, 2008.
- Joseph Agostino served as the pastor of St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church from September 2000 through May 2009.
- The defendant congregation appointed Augusto Cortez as assistant church pastor in September 2003, and Cortez resided in the church’s local community house.
- From 2007 through the time of the alleged abuse, Joseph Agostino was the “Local Superior” at the Community House, bearing oversight responsibilities over Cortez and other residents.
- The St. John the Baptist School's principal and assistant principal objected to Cortez's presence at the school due to concerns about his excessive contact with children and summoning them out of class for unrelated chores.
- Joseph Agostino allegedly overruled the school administrators’ decision to remove Cortez and authorized his continued presence at the school.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, Krystal G. (an infant) and her parents Vivian and Juan G., commenced an action on December 11, 2009, against Joseph Agostino, Augusto Cortez, St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, and other defendants in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County (the trial court).
- Plaintiffs filed an amended summons and amended complaint on January 27, 2010.
- Defendant Joseph Agostino moved in the trial court to dismiss the claims against him, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (failure to state a cause of action) and/or CPLR 3212 (summary judgment).
- Plaintiffs cross-moved in the trial court to compel defendant Cortez and the Vincentian defendants to provide certain requested discovery documents.
- Defendant Cortez and the Vincentian defendants cross-moved in the trial court to limit discovery and to compel all parties to execute a protective order, designating plaintiffs’ requested documents as “confidential.”
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a direct cause of action for negligent supervision and retention exist against a supervisor with oversight responsibilities who knew or should have known of a subordinate's propensity for misconduct, even if an employer-employee relationship is not present, the misconduct occurred off the employer's immediate premises, and the supervisor claims no independent tortious act, and is such liability separate from employer liability under respondeat superior?
Opinions:
Majority - Karen B. Rothenberg, J.
Yes, a supervisor can be held directly liable for negligent supervision and retention, separate from employer liability, where a sufficient supervisory relationship exists and the supervisor knew or should have known of the subordinate's harmful propensities. The court found that plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention against Joseph Agostino. The duty to investigate Cortez's background for the protection of children would have arisen once facts existed concerning Cortez's unlawful sexual propensities, making the initial lack of duty for specific hiring procedures inapplicable to continued employment. A sufficient supervisory relationship was established because Agostino, as church pastor and "Local Superior" of the Community House, was responsible for the daily operation and governance of the parish and had oversight responsibilities over Cortez, a subordinate, which New York case law (e.g., Connell v Hayden, Restatement (Second) of Agency § 358) supports even without a direct employer-employee relationship. The plaintiffs' allegations, including the school administrators' concerns about Cortez's conduct with children and Agostino's decision to override their attempt to remove Cortez from the school, were sufficient to demonstrate that Agostino knew or should have known of Cortez's propensity for sexual abuse. The court rejected Agostino's argument that a negligent supervision claim requires the tortious conduct to occur on the employer's premises or with the employer's chattels, distinguishing D'Amico v Christie as specific to the Dram Shop Act. Furthermore, the court clarified that respondeat superior allows a claimant the option to recover from a vicariously liable party and does not automatically extinguish the direct tortfeasor's liability. The court found that Cortez's alleged actions were outside the scope of his employment, and the rule from Segal v St. John's Univ. (regarding negligent claims against employers when an employee acts within scope of employment) was inapplicable to Agostino, a supervisor. Finally, the court held that an agent or corporate officer like Agostino can be liable for negligently supervising a third party, even if acting in an official capacity, citing Bellinzoni v Seland.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of direct supervisor liability for negligent supervision and retention in New York, particularly in contexts like religious organizations where traditional employer-employee relationships might be nuanced. It emphasizes that a formal employer-employee relationship is not strictly necessary to establish a duty to supervise, as long as a sufficient supervisory relationship with oversight responsibilities exists. The ruling underscores that individuals with supervisory duties bear direct responsibility for recognizing and acting upon warning signs of a subordinate's harmful propensities, preventing them from evading liability based on vicarious liability doctrines or claims of acting within employment scope. This decision reinforces protective measures for vulnerable individuals by affirming the personal accountability of those in positions of authority.
