Whether a clergyman's disclosure in court of confidential communications with a congregant subjects the clergyman to civil liability based on an alleged violation of the C.P.L.R. § 4505 "clergy-penitent privilege."

No. C.P.L.R. § 4505 is a rule of evidence affecting admissibility, and breach of the C.P.L.R. § 4505 "clergy-penitent privilege" does not give rise to a private cause of action.

In February 1996, Plaintiff sought a divorce from her husband and temporary custody of their four children. In opposition to the custody application, her husband submitted affirmations from two rabbis, Flaum and Weinberger, in order to show that his wife was compromising the religious upbringing of the children by not adhering to Orthodox Jewish law. The affirmations were based on conversations between the rabbis and Plaintiff that occurred in the presence of third parties. As a result of the disclosures, Plaintiff commenced an action against the rabbis alleging a breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the C.P.L.R. § 4505 "clergy-penitent privilege." The Supreme Court ruled that a violation of section 4505 was actionable as a breach of fiduciary duty of confidentiality. The Appellate Division modified the holding, ruling that although a violation of section 4505 was actionable, Plaintiff waived the clergy-penitent privilege when she invited third parties into her meetings with Defendants.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the holding, but reversed the finding that a violation of section 4505 was actionable as a breach of a fiduciary duty of confidentiality. Section 4505 states, in pertinent part, that absent a waiver, a religious minister "shall not be allowed to disclose a . . . confidence made to him . . . as a spiritual advisor." In clarifying the statute's scope, the Court held that C.P.L.R. § 4505 is an evidentiary rule and does not give rise to a private cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty involving disclosures based on congregant-clergy communications. The Court noted that disclosure may constitute a breach of a fiduciary duty of confidentiality in other professional relationships under a law other than C.P.L.R. § 4505, such as in the health care profession or the legal profession. However, the Court distinguished confidential information shared with licensed professionals from confidential information shared with clergy, who are free to engage in religious activities without the State's permission. Unlike the former, clergy are not subject to a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating their professional relationships, and thus there is no source for a fiduciary duty of confidentiality.