## Facts

- Infant plaintiffs alleged that Enrique Diaz Jimenez, a Roman Catholic priest employed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, sexually abused them between 1983 and 1989.
- Jimenez had been ordained in Venezuela and was recommended to the Diocese by letter from the Archbishop of Merida, Venezuela; the Diocese allegedly had no notice of prior misconduct when it hired him.
- Jimenez later pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the third degree based on the alleged conduct.
- Plaintiffs alleged that complaints about Jimenez’s sexual misconduct were made to church officials during his employment, including statements by plaintiffs and Jimenez to other priests.
- Plaintiffs sued the Diocese under direct negligence theories including negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision.
- The Diocese moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7); the trial court dismissed respondeat superior, “clergy malpractice,” and a “climate and custom” claim, but refused to dismiss negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims.
- The Diocese appealed only the denial of dismissal as to negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent hiring where the Diocese allegedly lacked pre-hire notice of the priest’s propensity for sexual abuse.
2. Whether the complaint stated causes of action for negligent retention and negligent supervision based on allegations that the Diocese knew or should have known of abuse during the priest’s employment and failed to take reasonable steps.
3. Whether adjudicating these negligence claims would impermissibly entangle the court in religious decisions in violation of the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the order.
- The court dismissed the negligent hiring cause of action for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the allegations were sufficient to state claims for negligent retention and negligent supervision and allowed those claims to proceed.
- As modified, the order was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- On a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court construes the pleading liberally, accepts alleged facts as true, and gives the plaintiff the benefit of favorable inferences; dismissal is warranted only if no cognizable claim is stated.
- An employer may be liable for negligent retention or supervision where it knew or should have known of an employee’s propensity for the type of conduct that caused the injury and failed to exercise reasonable care.
- Negligent hiring requires sufficient allegations that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity at the time of hiring; conclusory assertions without facts showing pre-hire notice are insufficient.
- Civil courts may not impose tort liability that requires review of ecclesiastical decisions concerning ordination or clerical fitness, but may apply neutral tort principles to a religious employer’s allegedly unreasonable response to notice of criminal misconduct during employment.

## Conclusion

The court drew a boundary between claims challenging church decisions about clergy selection, which could not support negligent hiring on the pleaded facts, and claims based on post-hire notice of sexual abuse, which stated viable negligent retention and negligent supervision theories under neutral tort principles.


Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1997)