Court acts on lawsuit

In a ruling issued on Sept. 22, Acting Supreme Court Justice Christian F. Hummel dismissed a claim against a priest who was included in a lawsuit related to sexual abuse of children by clergy.

In his ruling, the judge also warned attorney John Aretakis, who has sued the Albany Diocese on behalf of alleged victims of abuse, that he could face contempt charges for making "a series of reckless and unsubstantiated charges against this Court and all of the Acting Supreme Court Justices and the Supreme Court Justices of the Third Judicial District....These allegations were untrue at the time [Mr. Aretakis] made them and they continue to be untrue. [He] has made these allegations with a reckless and intentional disregard for the truth." Judge Hummel also characterized Mr. Aretakis' allegations as "wild and unsubstantiated," and as "unprincipled attacks on the judiciary."

If he continues such behavior, the judge warned, "the Court will schedule a hearing to determine if Mr. Aretakis should be held in contempt of court."

Phone call

Those comments came at the end of the judge's decision to remove Rev. Kenneth J. Doyle, chancellor of the Albany Diocese, from a lawsuit. He had not been accused of abuse but of encouraging another priest to make a phone call.

The abuse itself allegedly occurred about 30 years ago, placing it well beyond the statute of limitations for prosecution. The lawsuit involved a claim that the allegedly abusive priest, Rev. John Bertolucci, telephoned the victim's parents in September 2002 and harassed them. Father Bertolucci had been removed from ministry by Bishop Howard J. Hubbard in June 2002.

The lawsuit claimed that the phone call was made at the "insistence" of Father Doyle. He denied even knowing about the call, and Father Bertolucci said in an affidavit that "I was solely involved in the decision to call."

The judge noted in his decision that Mr. Aretakis had offered no proof of any of his allegations against Father Doyle. Judge Hummel also said that "unsupported speculation" is not sufficient to continue with a case against Father Doyle.

Reaction

Reacting to the ruling, Father Doyle told The Evangelist, "I had enough trust in the inherent power of the truth to believe it would eventually surface. "Mr. Aretakis simply made up the allegations against me, a fact the Court strongly suggests in referring to them as 'unsupported speculation' with no facts to substantiate them."

Father Doyle added that he felt "a certain relief from the Court's decision, although my pain in being wrongly accused was nothing in comparison to the pain of the victims of sexual abuse."

Previous rulings

With this ruling, Judge Hummel has dismissed one lawsuit against the Diocese, and removed the Diocese, Father Doyle and Bishop Howard J. Hubbard from another. Both suits had been filed by Mr. Aretakis.

Another claim, made against Sister Anne Bryan Smollin, director of the diocesan Counseling for Laity Office, was voluntarily withdrawn by the person who had brought the lawsuit after he dismissed Mr. Aretakis and got a new attorney (see article in the Sept. 18 issue of The Evangelist or online at www.evangelist.org).

The only case remaining before the judge involves Father Bertolucci.

Further criticism

The judge's Sept. 22 comments about Mr. Aretakis' behavior follow a Sept. 19 ruling in which Judge Hummel firmly rejected a motion for his recusal that had been made by Mr. Aretakis.

Mr. Aretakis had asked for Judge Hummel's recusal in a motion that alleged a criminal conspiracy among state judges against Mr. Aretakis and his clients. Mr. Aretakis' allegations against the Court included such things as mail fraud and tampering with files; in his Sept. 22 ruling, the judge referred to all of the allegations as "wild and unsubstantiated."

In his Sept. 19 ruling, Judge Hummel had said that he found the lawyer's "arguments and factual recitations to be so disingenuous as to be unethical and unbecoming an attorney." The judge also declared that Mr. Aretakis "has intentionally and recklessly disregarded the facts in this matter."

Allegations rebutted

In his motion for recusal, Mr. Aretakis made several allegations, which were rejected by Judge Hummel. For example, the attorney alleged that Judge Hummel was appointed to the abuse cases despite not being regularly assigned before to Supreme Court. The judge pointed out that he has repeatedly been given such assignments and that Mr. Aretakis had never asked for a list of them. The judge also noted that Mr. Aretakis never objected to his being assigned to the cases until he made rulings against the lawyer.

"It stands to reason," Judge Hummel ruled, "that Mr. Aretakis objects to the Court's legal determinations to date....If he and his clients believe this Court has made an error of law in its proper rulings, the proper venue is...the Appellate Division," not an attempt to have the judge recuse himself. Mr. Aretakis further claimed that the Court did not allow him proper time to respond in one of the cases because he had "a death in the family." Judge Hummel noted that the attorney had one month to respond and added, "It is unclear how the unspecified death...affected Counsel's ability to respond."

Ethics questioned

In his Sept. 19 ruling, Judge Hummel noted that Mr. Aretakis had made a number of additional "allegations of bias" but said that they were "unsupported factually and unworthy of further comment."

"It is apparent," Judge Hummel concluded, that Mr. Aretakis' allegations "are designed to intimidate this Court into granting his unfounded request that I recuse myself. The Court can [not] and will not reward such behavior.

"All [Mr. Aretakis] has established by his unfounded allegations and his behavior is that he is either totally unaware of the ethical obligations of an attorney licensed to practice law in New York State or has chosen to completely ignore his ethical obligations."

(9/25/03) [[In-content Ad]]