In S.S v. Diocese of Brooklyn, No. 523927/2019, 2024 WL 515477 (N.Y. Sup Ct, Kings County Feb. 05, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to strike “scandalous” language from plaintiff’s complaint.
From the decision:
Defendants move by Notice of Motion seq. 002 for an order striking scandalous and unnecessary language from the complaint pursuant to CPLR § 3024(b), directing the plaintiff to provide a more definitive statement as to the first cause of action pursuant to CPLR § 3024(b), and dismissing the claim for punitive damages pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7). Defendants submit that paragraphs 20, 22, 28 through 46, 49 and 50 must be stricken in their entirety from the complaint arguing, inter alia, that the language is scandalous, prejudicial, inflammatory, and unnecessary to the viability of the action. Plaintiff argues that said allegations contained in the above paragraphs are “relevant to Plaintiff’s negligent cause of action” and should not be stricken.
In reviewing a motion pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), “the inquiry is whether the purportedly scandalous or prejudicial allegations are relevant to a cause of action” (see Soumayah v. Minnelli, 41 A.D.3d 390, 392 [1st Dept. 2007]; see Wegman v. Dairylea Coop., 50 A.D.2d 108, 111 [4th Dept. 1975]). Matters that are unnecessary to the viability of the cause of action and would cause undue prejudice to defendants should be stricken from the pleading or bill of particulars (see Irving v. Four Seasons Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 121 A.D.3d 1046, 1048 [2d Dept. 2014]).
The language contained in paragraphs 20, 22, 28 through 46, 49 and 50 of the complaint regarding the Catholic Church’s history of concealment of the alleged sexual abuse by priests by official church policy is highly scandalous. However, same also clearly bears a rational relationship to Plaintiff’s claims regarding Defendants’ liability for this abuse. See, W.F. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, case no. 20-7020, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111062 (D.N.J June 7, 2021).
Accordingly, based on this, the court denied the portion of Defendants’ motion to strike the allegations in the complaint as scandalous and unnecessary.