A New York court has dismissed claims against the Metropolitan New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America related to alleged sexual abuse by two pastors. This ruling affects victims who sought accountability from the church for incidents that occurred decades ago. The decision highlights the complexities of legal responsibility for organizations regarding actions of individuals in the past.
The case, Stepton-Howard v. Metropolitan N.Y. Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was decided on September 29, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The court ruled on two separate complaints from plaintiffs Lisa Stepton-Howard and Fred Torbert Jr., who alleged abuse by pastors associated with the Synod. The court's decision may have significant implications for other cases involving similar claims against religious organizations.
Background
Lisa Stepton-Howard and Fred Torbert Jr. filed separate lawsuits against the Metropolitan New York Synod, claiming that they were sexually abused by Lutheran pastors in the late 1960s and 1970s. Torbert alleges he was abused in 1978 by a pastor known as “Pastor Larry” when he was a 14-year-old employee at a summer camp run by St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Bronx. Stepton-Howard claims she was abused by “Pastor John Doe” at Trinity Lutheran Church in Queens in 1968 when she was just seven years old.
Both plaintiffs contend that the Synod is liable due to negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment of the abuse. They argue that the Synod should have known about the risks posed by the pastors and failed to protect them. However, the Synod countered that it was not in existence at the time of the alleged abuse, which led to its motion to dismiss the complaints.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of the Metropolitan New York Synod, reversing the lower court's decision that had denied the Synod's motion to dismiss the complaints. The court stated, “the plaintiffs failed to specifically plead the successor-in-interest claim,” which was essential for holding the Synod liable for actions that occurred before it was incorporated in 1987. The judges on the panel included Webber, Moulton, González, Higgitt, and Parker-Raso.
The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' arguments did not sufficiently establish that the Synod was a successor to the organizations that existed at the time of the alleged abuse. The ruling concluded that the Synod could not be held responsible for the actions of the pastors because it did not exist when the abuse occurred. The court directed that the complaints against the Synod be dismissed.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for victims of past abuse seeking justice against religious organizations. It underscores the challenges faced by individuals attempting to hold institutions accountable for actions committed by their members before those institutions were legally established. The decision may discourage other potential claims against the Synod and similar organizations, as it sets a precedent regarding the liability of entities that were not in existence at the time of alleged misconduct.
The court's ruling may also affect how future cases involving successor liability are approached, particularly in the context of religious organizations. Victims may need to provide more substantial evidence linking current organizations to past entities to succeed in their claims. This could lead to a more complex legal landscape for victims seeking accountability.
What's Next
The plaintiffs may consider appealing the court's decision to a higher court, although details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the issue of liability in similar circumstances.