By Kristen Neymarc
A landmark Delbarton sexual abuse case has been dropped back onto the lap of Superior Court Judge Louis Sceusi, along with allegations of hidden evidence, a renewed path to institutional liability and a bitter fight over what the lawyers may say publicly.
After about 90 minutes of virtual arguments Friday, Sceusi issued no decision. But he acknowledged the case raises novel legal questions and predicted many of them ultimately will reach the Appellate Division.
Before that can happen, he must finish the case sent back to him after the appeals court dismissed the Benedictine order’s first appeal as premature.
A $5 MILLION VERDICT—BUT NO PUNITIVE DAMAGES
The case against former monk Richard Lott and the Benedictine order was brought by T.M., whose name is protected, after he said Lott sexually abused him in a Delbarton campus barn on New Year’s Day 1976, when he was 15.
Last October, after a trial lasting several weeks, jurors awarded T.M. $5 million and placed 65 percent of the blame on the Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey, which runs Delbarton School and St. Mary’s Abbey.
But the jury stopped short of finding that the order in Morris Township knowingly permitted or ignored the abuse and declined to impose punitive damages.
FOUR STATEMENTS PRODUCED AFTER TRIAL
T.M.’s lawyer, Rayna Kessler, now says the jury made that decision without four interview statements contained in other investigative files prepared by Delbarton investigator Nicholas Susalis.
The material was produced months after T.M.’s trial, in consolidated litigation involving 38 other Delbarton abuse cases. Kessler said the defense previously had assured her that no additional Lott-related evidence existed.
The defense does not dispute that the four statements were produced after trial. Attorney Stefani Field said they had been withheld during a legitimate work-product and privilege dispute, not concealed.
She characterized them as vague, repetitive or unrelated to the sexual abuse of a student and argued they would not have changed the verdict.
Sceusi questioned why the material should be considered newly discovered when Susalis had been deposed and testified at trial. He also asked whether the statements would have been admitted and whether they were strong enough to alter the jury’s five-to-one vote against finding that the monks knowingly permitted or acquiesced in the abuse.
Kessler replied that T.M.’s lawyers knew only about the portion of Susalis’ investigation they had received and had specifically been told there was no other Lott-related material.
She asked Sceusi to order a new trial limited to institutional knowledge and punitive culpability, leaving the $5 million compensatory verdict intact. Alternatively, she asked him to declare those disputed issues established because of the alleged discovery misconduct.
Sceusi questioned how limited such a retrial really could be, noting that a new jury might have to hear much of the institutional evidence again.
ANOTHER ROUTE TO HOLDING DELBARTON RESPONSIBLE
Sceusi also must consider a separate argument based on Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education, a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision.
Kessler said Hornor provides another route to holding Delbarton responsible: Whether the school gave Lott authority over a student’s educational environment, whether that authority enabled the abuse and whether the circumstances made his conduct appear tacitly tolerated.
That standard could matter even though the jury did not find that Delbarton knowingly allowed the abuse. It also could affect T.M.’s claim for attorney fees.
Field said Sceusi already considered Hornor and that any disagreement with his interpretation belongs on appeal.
PRESS COMMENTS ENTER THE DISPUTE
The hostility between the sides became most visible when Field asked Sceusi to limit public comments by T.M.’s lawyers.
The monks withdrew a separate request to punish Kessler’s legal team, but kept their request for restrictions on public statements.
Field quoted Kessler’s comments to Morristown Green that T.M. deserved “the truth, not a trial record shaped by hidden evidence,” and that a party should not be rewarded for hiding court-ordered discovery until after a verdict.
Field said such accusations could poison the jury pool and jeopardize Delbarton’s right to fair trials in the 38 pending cases.
Kessler said she had made only limited comments about public court proceedings and had followed Sceusi’s press restrictions during trial. She also rejected Field’s assertion that T.M.’s team had “fast tracked” the case while discovery disputes remained unresolved.
Waiting eight years for a trial, Kessler argued, was hardly rushing.
The exchange grew increasingly pointed. Field accused Kessler of mischaracterizing the discovery history and called a statement published on the website of Robins Kaplan, the law firm representing T.M., “patently false.”
Kessler disputed Field’s account point by point and said she was “a bit shocked” to be accused during oral argument of violating a professional-ethics rule that had not been raised in the written papers.
Sceusi praised the lawyers’ professionalism but said they had not always cooperated. He reminded the lawyers on both sides to continue to follow their professional obligations.
MORE DECISIONS—AND ALMOST CERTAINLY MORE APPEALS
Also awaiting his decision are the monks’ request to pause enforcement of the judgment despite having no active appeal, approximately $1.79 million in disputed prejudgment interest, about $120,000 in special-master expenses and a dispute over one attorney’s hourly rate.
Sceusi said he expects to issue a written ruling shortly.
Whatever he decides, he made clear that his ruling is unlikely to be the last word.
Morristown has a long history of people stepping forward in pivotal moments.
When you chip in to Morristown Green, you’re helping your neighbors stay informed, strengthening our civic backbone, and carrying on the spirit that’s defined this town since its earliest days.
Rally for local news.