NEW YORK
Law.com
John Caher
New York Law Journal
07-18-2005
The New York Court of Appeals so rarely reverses itself that when it does, observers take notice. Such is the case with two clergy abuse matters now pending before the court.
Earlier this month, after denying leave in a 30-year-old alleged sexual abuse case, the court reversed itself and agreed to hear the appeal of Zumpano v. Quinn. That decision followed another, Boyle v. Smith, where the court -- subsequent to the initial leave denial in Zumpano -- granted leave in a case involving claims by 42 men and women who contend they were abused by a dozen priests in the Diocese of Brooklyn.
There is no way to determine what was on the judges' minds when they granted leave in Boyle and reversed themselves in Zumpano, but the motion papers do at least show what the plaintiffs argued in their successful bids. In both cases, plaintiffs counsel focused on the doctrine of equitable estoppel and an exception to the statute of limitations where it is alleged that the wrongdoing of the defendant caused the plaintiff to refrain from timely filing.
In Zumpano, for instance, counsel Frank Policelli of Utica, N.Y., contends that his client's mental illness is directly attributable to the abuse he allegedly suffered at the hands of a Syracuse, N.Y., diocese priest. He claims the defendant held such psychological power over John Zumpano that there was no way the victim could have sought legal relief earlier.