After accused sexual abuser Edwin “Ted” Gaynor announced his intentions to skip a court-ordered deposition last month, a March 9 ruling by state Supreme Court Associate Justice Steven M. Jaeger could put Gaynor’s testimony back on the table. Jaeger’s decision gives Gaynor, 84, until March 17 to show cause as to why he should not be compelled to give testimony in his own defense, signaling the latest chapter in the ongoing abuse case against the Ossining resident.
Gaynor is the defendant in a lawsuit pursued under New York State’s Child’s Victim Act that alleges the former teacher and coach at Scarsdale’s Immaculate Heart of Mary Church abused 15 victims over the course of his decades-long employment at various schools operating under the purview of the Archdiocese of New York.
Both IHM and the Archdiocese are also named as defendants in the suit.
On Feb. 14, Jaeger denied a motion by Gaynor’s co-defendants that claimed the former teacher was not mentally competent to speak on his own behalf, and ruled that his deposition was to take place no later than March 27.
However, on Feb. 25, Gaynor wrote a letter to the law offices of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C—which is representing the plaintiffs—stating that his various physical ailments will prevent him from complying with the judge’s order.
“In the last 22 days, I have needed an average of more than 18 hours a day/night in bed . . . I have had to neglect some very important things and my apartment is a mess because of my lack of time,” Gaynor wrote. “I want to respond to each accusation, but as you know I’m having trouble keeping up with that. However, I’m the only one who is able to do it.”
Gaynor previously admitted to molesting two of the defendants in similar hand-written letters to the law firm but denied several other charges.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs petitioned the court on March 6, writing that “Defendant Gaynor’s February 25 letter further supports Plaintiff’s claim that Gaynor has no intention of appearing for his duly noted deposition and that an order compelling him to appear is necessary and/or an order holding Gaynor in contempt.”
Jaeger’s order to compel Gaynor’s deposition stated that if the defendant is unable to provide the court with substantial evidence of his inability to provide testimony by March 17, failure to appear for a subsequent March 26 deposition could result in Gaynor being held in contempt of court.
