“A Legal Nullity Without Leave” – Raiola v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Dual Thresholds for (1) Adding New Defendants and (2) CPLR 3211(a)(7) Dismissals

Introduction

Raiola v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (2025 NY Slip Op 02949) arises from alleged sexual abuse endured by Anthony Raiola while he was a student at Bishop Ford Central Catholic High School (BFCCHS). Invoking New York’s Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g), Raiola sued the Order of Saint Francis (OSF) and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (“Diocese”) for negligence. Two years later he unilaterally attempted to replace OSF with a new entity—Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn (“Franciscan Brothers”)—through a supplemental summons and amended complaint without obtaining leave of court or a stipulation of the parties.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, subsequently (1) dismissed the action against Franciscan Brothers via summary judgment and (2) granted the Diocese’s CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal as to Franciscan Brothers but reinstated the claims against the Diocese, remitting the matter for further consideration of the Diocese’s remaining arguments.

Summary of the Judgment

Franciscan Brothers: The court ruled that plaintiff’s supplemental summons and amended complaint, filed without leave of court after the time to amend as of right had expired, was a “legal nullity.” Consequently, personal jurisdiction was lacking and dismissal was mandated.
Diocese: The affidavit and documents submitted did not conclusively prove the Diocese lacked supervision or control over the alleged abuser so as to warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7). Therefore, the motion was wrongly granted and the case against the Diocese survives—for now.
Case remitted: The trial court must now address other grounds for dismissal previously unconsidered.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Amendment / Addition of Parties

Hulse v. Wirth (175 AD3d 1276 [2019]) – clarifies the jurisdictional nature of adding parties without leave.
Perez v. Paramount Communications (92 NY2d 749 [1999]) – foundational Court of Appeals pronouncement that an improperly added party renders the pleading void.
Bodkin v. 112 Automotive Ctr., Inc. (214 AD3d 620 [2023]) – recent Second Department application; cited for the “legal nullity” formulation.
Jaramillo v. Asconcio (151 AD3d 947 [2017]); Ospina v. Vimm Corp. (203 AD2d 440 [1994]) – distinguish between misnaming and adding a brand-new defendant.

CPLR 3211(a)(7) Dismissal Standard

Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg (43 NY2d 268 [1977]) – classic rule: dismissal only if the alleged material fact “is not a fact at all.”
J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co. (21 NY3d 324 [2013]) – re-affirms liberal construction on motion to dismiss.
Cajigas v. Clean Rite Ctrs., LLC (187 AD3d 700 [2020]) and Lawrence v. Graubard Miller (11 NY3d 588 [2008]) – affidavits seldom suffice to defeat a pleading at 3211 stage.
808 Union St., LLC v. J. Lehman Park Slope, LLC (216 AD3d 883 [2023]) – integrates evidentiary submissions into the “no factual dispute” test.
J.A.F. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. (216 AD3d 454 [2023]) & J.D. v. Archdiocese of N.Y. (214 AD3d 561 [2023]) – Child Victims Act cases showing that diocesan relationships with schools can pose fact-intensive agency questions.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) Addition of Franciscan Brothers as Defendant

CPLR 1003 & 3025(b) Framework. Because the original time to amend as of right had lapsed (CPLR 3025[a]), plaintiff needed either court leave or a stipulation by all appearing parties to add a new defendant.
Jurisdictional Nature. The court, following Perez and progeny, stressed that failure to observe CPLR 1003 is jurisdictional, not merely procedural.
Legal Nullity. Consequently, the supplemental summons and amended complaint carried “no legal effect,” leaving the court without personal jurisdiction over Franciscan Brothers. Summary judgment dismissal was therefore proper.

b) Denial of the Diocese’s 3211(a)(7) Motion

Standard Applied. Accept the complaint’s allegations; dismissal appropriate only if submitted evidence conclusively establishes the claim is without merit.
Content of Diocese’s Affidavit. The Diocese offered an affidavit claiming it did not operate BFCCHS or supervise the principal during the relevant years. However, the court found the materials inconclusive—they neither definitively negated agency nor proved an absence of supervisory control.
Child Victims Act Context. Prior CVA cases noted (e.g., J.A.F.) show courts reluctant to dispatch claims without discovery where ecclesiastical-school relationships are opaque.
Result. The pleading survives; the Diocese’s remaining defenses (statute of limitations, charitable immunity, etc., if any) must now be evaluated by the Supreme Court.

3. Anticipated Impact

Amendment Practice. Plaintiffs, especially in CVA-related cluster litigation, often seek to refine defendants once institutional identities emerge through discovery. Raiola makes clear: doing so without formal leave risks absolute nullification. Case management orders will likely stress early motion practice or stipulations to avoid this trap.
Strategic Use of CPLR 3211(a)(7). Defendants relying on affidavits to secure pre-answer dismissals now face a raised bar; Raiola underscores that only uncontested, documentary “silver bullets” will end CVA negligence claims at the pleadings stage.
Diocesan Liability Questions. The decision aligns the Second Department with other departments in holding that the scope of diocesan control over parochial/“independent” schools is often fact-specific, requiring discovery.
Judicial Economy vs. Victim Access. The ruling balances procedural exactitude (strict compliance with CPLR) against a policy of letting potential victims reach merits, echoing the legislature’s intent behind the Child Victims Act.

Complex Concepts Simplified

CPLR 1003: New York rule controlling when and how parties may be added. If the window to amend “as of right” has closed, you must get court permission or consent of all litigants. Violation voids the amendment.
CPLR 3025(a)/(b): 3025(a) gives one amendment as of right within certain time limits; 3025(b) governs amendments beyond that, which require leave or stipulation.
Legal Nullity: A filing considered void ab initio; the court treats it as though it never existed, stripping jurisdiction over the affected parties.
CPLR 3211(a)(7): Motion to dismiss for “failure to state a cause of action.” Courts assume the complaint’s facts are true unless evidence utterly refutes them.
Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g): 2019 statute briefly reopened time-barred sexual abuse claims, prompting high-volume litigation against churches, schools, and youth organizations.

Conclusion

Raiola v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn crystallizes two critical procedural teachings:

Amending to add a new defendant after the initial amendment period demands strict compliance with CPLR 1003 and 3025(b); absent leave or unanimous stipulation, the pleading is a legal nullity.
An affidavit that merely disputes—rather than definitively negates—key allegations will not suffice for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7), especially in fact-sensitive Child Victims Act suits.

By enforcing diligence in party joinder while preserving access to merits-based adjudication for survivors, the Second Department’s decision both disciplines litigants and advances the remedial purpose of the CVA. Future practitioners should heed its dual lessons: obtain leave before adding defendants, and expect intensified scrutiny when seeking pre-discovery dismissal in institutional abuse cases.