(NJ)
NorthJersey.com [Woodland Park NJ]
May 13, 2026
By Mark Crawford
We were wrong to think the Delbarton story was over. What has emerged since the jurors left the courtroom is more disturbing than what they were ever permitted to hear. And what is now in the public record raises profound questions not only about one case, but about whether survivors in New Jersey can trust the system designed to protect them.
What the court record now shows
On April 22, 2026, the plaintiff in T.M. v. Order of St. Benedict of New Jersey, Inc., filed a motion for sanctions alleging that the order — which operates St. Mary’s Abbey and Delbarton School — withheld critical investigative reports throughout nine years of litigation. These allegations are not rumor or speculation; they are drawn from sworn testimony, discovery correspondence and documents that surfaced only because other survivors in related litigation received productions that T.M. never saw.
According to the motion, the order hired a private investigator, Nicholas Susalis, to examine allegations of sexual abuse against its clergy. Susalis produced numerous reports, including at least four that referred to prior allegations against the Rev. Richard Lott — the priest accused of abusing T.M. These reports were never produced to the plaintiff. Not in response to discovery requests served in 2017. Not after a court order in 2021 specifically requiring materials related to allegations against Lott. Not even when a special discovery adjudicator, the Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, now retired, asked for them directly.
The motion alleges that when Wolfson asked the order’s counsel whether additional investigative reports existed beyond the six they had provided, counsel said no. Yet the newly surfaced documents suggest that counsel possessed multiple additional reports referring to Lott at the very moment that denial was made.
The motion also points to sworn testimony from the order’s corporate representative — the individual designated to speak for the institution — who stated that Lott had five allegations against him from five separate victims. The newly surfaced reports, according to the motion, contradict that testimony and indicate that the true number was higher.
None of this material, the new motion alleges, was available to the jury. None of it was available to the plaintiff. It emerged only because other survivors, in consolidated litigation against the same institution, received productions that revealed the existence of the Susalis reports for the first time.
Why this matters beyond one verdict
At SNAP New Jersey, we are not lawyers, and it is not our role to determine whether the order violated discovery rules. That responsibility now rests with the Hon. Louis S. Sceusi, who will hear the motion on May 22, 2026. The order will have the opportunity to respond, and the court will weigh the evidence.
But we are the people who sit with survivors. We are the ones who answer the phone when someone, often for the first time in decades, decides to speak. We are the ones who explain what litigation entails — the depositions, the document requests, the years of waiting, the exposure of the most painful experiences of their lives to institutional scrutiny. And we tell them, because we believe it, that the legal system demands honesty from both sides.
What is alleged in this motion strikes at the foundation of that promise.
The punitive damages phase of T.M.’s trial required the jury to determine whether the order acted with malicious or wanton disregard for T.M.’s rights. The jury did not make that finding. But the motion now alleges that the jury never had access to evidence directly bearing on that question: what the institution knew about Lott’s prior conduct, when it knew it and how it responded. If the allegations are accurate, the jury was denied some of the most relevant evidence that existed.
We recognize that these are allegations, not findings. But we have watched this institution — and others like it — for decades. We have seen the pattern: selective disclosure, aggressive privilege claims and document productions that are completed only when further concealment becomes impossible. We have seen survivors learn, years after their cases ended, that the record on which they were judged was incomplete.
The stakes for abuse survivors across New Jersey
New Jersey’s Child Victims Act opened a long‑overdue window for survivors who had been barred by outdated statutes of limitations. That window was built on a simple promise: If you come forward, the system will treat you fairly. Both sides will play by the rules. The evidence will be shared. The truth will be tested.
That promise collapses if institutions can withhold responsive materials for nearly a decade, make representations to courts that later prove inaccurate, and then avoid meaningful accountability because a jury has already rendered its verdict.
The sanctions requested in the motion are serious: striking the order’s answer and defenses, deeming certain facts established as a matter of law — including that the institution knowingly permitted and acquiesced in T.M.’s abuse — reopening the punitive damages phase, awarding attorney’s fees, and entering a contempt finding. These are extraordinary remedies, reserved for extraordinary circumstances. The court will determine whether the facts justify them.
What SNAP New Jersey asks is simple: that the court treat the integrity of the discovery process as the non‑negotiable foundation it is meant to be. Survivors deserve adversaries who comply with court orders. They deserve a system that compels full disclosure. They deserve to know that the record on which their claims are judged is the full record — not the one their opponents chose to provide.
Earlier: Delbarton School seeks new trial after ‘tainted’ jury awarded $5M in sexual abuse case
A message to other survivors
If you are watching this case — whether as a Delbarton survivor or as someone abused in another Catholic institution — please do not be discouraged. The fact that this motion exists is itself evidence that the system has mechanisms for addressing misconduct. Courts have broad authority to sanction discovery violations, and New Jersey courts have used that authority when warranted.
But we also want to be honest: Litigation is hard. It is long. It is imperfect. Institutions with substantial resources fight aggressively, and not always by the rules. SNAP New Jersey exists to ensure that survivors understand what they may face and to support them when they face it.
If you experienced abuse at Delbarton or by any member of the Benedictine community and have not yet spoken with an attorney, please reach out. The window created by the Child Victims Act may still be available to you, and you deserve to make that decision with complete information.
The final word
The Order of St. Benedict presents itself as an institution committed to faith and to the welfare of those in its care. If that commitment is genuine, its leadership should welcome full transparency, complete compliance with court orders and an honest accounting of what it knew about Lott and when it knew it. That accounting has not yet been provided.
On May 22, the court will have the opportunity to reinforce a principle that should never be in doubt: Survivors deserve the truth, and the legal system must demand it.
Mark Crawford is state director of SNAP New Jersey.