NY- Victims persist with case; SNAP responds

For immediate release: Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014

Statement by David Clohessy of St. Louis, Director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (314 566 9790, [email protected]om)

Thirty four abuse victims from Yeshiva University are asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to re-examine a recent ruling against them. We desperately hope the court listens.

As adults, we can either make it harder or easier for victims of rape and child abuse to report crimes. The three judge panel that sided with Yeshiva officials over these victims is making it harder to report crimes. That, in turn, leads to more adults and kids being sexually assaulted.

If more predators are to be caught, we must relax or repeal archaic laws that protect the guilty and endanger the innocent.

We commend these brave victims for persisting in their struggle for justice. It's clear that Yeshiva officials hid and enabled heinous crimes against students. This will become even clearer if New York's justice system will give these wounded but courageous victims their 'day in court.'

We beg the Second Circuit judges to let these pained men have this opportunity

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. We’ve been around for 25 years and have more than 20,000 members. Despite the word “priest” in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Contact - David Clohessy (314-566-9790 cell, [email protected]) Barbara Dorris (314-503-0003 cell, [email protected])


Showing 2 comments

  • Peter Brooks
    commented 2014-09-10 08:23:02 -0500
    Regarding the opinion on when the statute begins for abuse victims taking action vs. their schools:

    Requiring that the child reporting abuse and being told the school was unaware then to sue or lose the right within three years makes no sense. Further, it rewards the school for both misleading victims and covering up. Essentially if the admin stonewalls for 3 years and intimidates victims, they earn immunity going forward once the scope or complicity is revealed. Why would any victim know to sue a school they attend and depend on, while being misled by that school as to its knowledge and hence having no evidence (yet then) of its unwillingness to act?

    Point is, if the school says it is looking into the matter, the child is stalled. At what point would he expect the school to act? if the school says it knows and won’t act, maybe that would be evidence of indifference, BUT if the school says it is unaware, the child has NO evidence of indifference. How can the clock start then?

    Especially when the school tells the complainants that it doesn’t believe them.

    No child should be penalized because he or she believed what the school told them. Otherwise you hold the victim accountable for things they can’t know, and let the adults who should be responsible off the hook for things they should and it appears did and do know.
  • @ tweeted this page. 2014-09-09 15:17:33 -0500

SNAP Network is a GuideStar Gold Participant