Background
In August 2021, Joseph Kessler filed suit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Blessed Sacrament Roman Catholic Church, and St. John Vianney Roman Catholic Church pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g), alleging that Father John Padian sexually abused him. The complaint alleged that at the time of the abuse, Padian was assigned to Blessed Sacrament in Jackson Heights, Queens — but the original complaint listed Blessed Sacrament’s address as a Brooklyn address rather than its correct Jackson Heights address. In April 2024, Kessler moved under CPLR 3025 to amend the complaint to correct the address.
Blessed Sacrament and St. John Vianney opposed the amendment, arguing it was prejudicial and effectively attempted to add a new defendant after the CVA window had closed. Supreme Court, Kings County granted the amendment and the two parishes appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed. Correcting a defendant’s address in a pleading is a form of amendment the court found appropriate under the liberal amendment standard of CPLR 3025(b), under which leave should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise. Blessed Sacrament was already a named defendant in the original complaint — the amendment corrected a scrivener’s error in the address, not the identity of the defendant. The court rejected the appellants’ framing that this was the equivalent of adding a new defendant, as Blessed Sacrament had been on notice of the suit from its inception. No new party was being joined after the CVA window; only an address was being corrected.
Key Takeaways
- Under CPLR 3025(b), leave to amend a complaint to correct an incorrectly listed address for an already-named defendant should be freely granted when there is no prejudice or surprise to the defendant.
- An address correction for a defendant already on notice of the lawsuit is distinct from adding a new party and does not implicate the post-expiration concerns of the Child Victims Act’s revival window (CPLR 214-g).
- CVA plaintiffs who discover factual errors in their original complaints — including misstated addresses or minor identifying information — should move promptly to amend; courts will apply the liberal CPLR 3025(b) standard.
Why It Matters
Thousands of Child Victims Act cases are still working through the courts. This decision offers practical guidance on how courts will treat clerical corrections to CVA complaints. Where errors in the original complaint relate to the identity or description of already-named defendants — rather than adding new parties — courts will apply the permissive CPLR 3025(b) standard rather than the stricter rules governing new-party amendments after a revival window closes. Plaintiffs’ counsel handling CVA cases should audit their complaints for accuracy and move to correct any errors promptly, and defense counsel should recognize that minor corrections will generally be allowed without triggering new-party limitations arguments.