Riverside Church Ordered to Pay $11.3 Million to Child Sex Abuse Victim

A former Riverside Church basketball participant received a verdict of $11.3 million from a New York jury on Wednesday, resolving allegations of sexual abuse involving the teen who joined the organization during its early prominence.

Plaintiff J.M., represented by Lucas Franken, stood before the Lower Manhattan State Supreme Court last week and testified that he endured eight or nine instances of sexual abuse in the spring of 1978 at the hands of Riverside’s former sports program director, Ernest ‘Ernie’ Lorch.

At age 14, J.M. faced repeated sexual exploitation in April or May 1978 while residing in a single-parent household in the Bronx. The accusations centered on Ernest ‘Ernie’ Lorch, a revered corporate attorney and executive who directed the church’s basketball operations, establishing templates for today’s multi-billion dollar youth sports ecosystem.

The court ultimately found Riverside liable for ‘reckless’ conduct, ordering the club to compensate the plaintiff $7.5 million for past suffering and $3.8 million for future damages.

“It is fulfilling to be heard at this juncture,” J.M.’s lawyer Lucas Franken told Rolling Stone. “After interacting with our witnesses, the jury clearly endorsed both the facts we conveyed and shared the conviction that the timeline speaks to fundamental principles.”

Attorneys representing Riverside and the church themselves declined to address the court’s findings via email on Wednesday, maintaining strategic silence on pending developments throughout the proceedings.

This case constitutes part of an extended litigation chain originating from the upper Manhattan church founded by the Rockefellers, which hosted pioneering youth sports programs and employed controversial coaching staff for four decades. It follows a January settlement reached with former Marist College player Daryl Powell, who secured payment before the matter advanced to jury consideration.

Current plaintiff J.M. represents one of 27 individuals who allege Lorch abused them during childhood. Excluding one exception, virtually all plaintiffs participated on Riverside’s athletic teams throughout the 1961-2002 period. As Rolling Stone and Sportico previously documented, the collective claim came from survivors who believed the church should have identified Lorch’s predatory behavior during his tenure as head coach.

Although some plaintiffs, including those who also contested the legality of New York’s prior Child Victims Act, publicly supported Lorch in 2002 after early reports surfaced regarding his relationships with minors, fewer distinguished names have intervened recently. A slow-moving legal process has brought this particular case forward, making it among the rare settlements realized and just the second instance to reach this stage of adjudication.

During J.M.’s trial, the plaintiff’s team included testimony from nine additional alleged victims. Much of their accounts paralleled the Powell case and illustrated patterns of abuse—including corporal punishment, inappropriate physical examinations, and incremental escalations targeting frequently marginalized African American and Latino youth—that the church either knew about or should have recognized through reasonable diligence.

Lawyers argued that Riverside failed to supervise Lorch effectively and disregarded multiple warning signals due to his wealth, clout within the organization owing to roles as deacon and board member, plus the prestige generated by the program itself.

“In sum, there was no oversight,” Franken asserted in his closing remarks. “The institution showed no accountability toward the students under protection.”

Notably, J.M., currently residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, stands apart from many fellow plaintiffs who struggle with substance challenges or legal histories, as he demonstrated a highly successful trajectory through higher education, career progression, and professional integration across nonprofit sectors.

Testifying before the court, J.M. detailed enduring consequences of his trauma, specifically questioning whether religion had ever warranted genuine faith after witnessing clergy misconduct unfold in 1985. He recounted abandoning Catholic devotion entirely following the revelation of widespread priest abuse.

Lorch’s malfeasce turned later in life, damaging his capacity to maintain domestic stability; J.M. noted inability to father children and pervasive distrust regarding familial security, describing adult mentors as agents who instead inflicted harm.

The defense suggested the church lacked any insight into Lorch’s misdeeds, insisting the institution bore no responsibility when abuse occurred regardless of documentation. Legal framing centered on the deliberate nature of the acts, asserting strict personal liability absent organizational culpability.

Expert counsel emphasized shifting 1960s and 1970s cultural standards, pointing out limited educational frameworks or mandated reporting requirements for suspected sexual misconduct prevalent upon the time.

Consequently, the court considered expert testimony disputing the prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. Semprevivo challenged the plaintiffs’ demonstration, highlighting absence of reported hallucinations or intrusive recollections.

Furthermore, the defense proposed that J.M. exhibits extraordinary functional capability—thriving professionally, socially, and personally—while still confronting invisible psychological burdens, positioning him as fully self-sufficient despite the traumatic background.

Franken countered by arguing experts could articulate dual narratives: one depicting J.M. as a resilient, acclaimed individual, and another portraying the silent torment experienced over 46 years of concealment. He cautioned that resilience does not absolve defendants of their obligations to victims.

Nearwaypoint in J.M.’s courtroom examination, closing remarks referenced Riverside’s investment in celebrating the plaintiff’s resume and societal recognition. Franken questioned whether external successes could possibly override the memory of a sixteen-year-old experiencing assault by a trusted authority figure.

When addressed directly, J.M. affirmed his receipt of achievement honifies while concurrently rejecting attempts to diminish the gravity of his childhood experiences.

Editor’s picks

J.M. filed suit against Riverside in 2019, shortly after New York enacted legislation expanding victims’ rights to file claims within shorter statutes of limitation periods, enabling survivors to pursue redress decades after the offenses occurred.

State law previously prohibited survivors from initiating suits more than one year following abuse, creating significant barriers to justice for deeply traumatized individuals seeking redress.

In his final appeal, Franken advocated for compensatory damages exceeding $25 million to provide full, fair remuneration reflecting the totality of suffering endured by his client.

Nearly every plaintiff acknowledges substantial public admiration for their accomplishments despite personal hardships, prompting questions about whether material success adequately compensates historically profound wounds.

Source link