New York Capitol, Albany (Photo: LennonsGhost/iStockphoto.com)

Editor’s note: This article is the second of a two-part series. Read the first part here.

After months of planning and training, officials within the state court system in New York say they’re ready for the thousands of civil cases expected to be filed in the coming weeks related to child sex abuse suffered by victims over the last several decades.

Many of those cases are expected to be filed this week under the Child Victims Act, a new law that created a one-year revival window starting Wednesday for victims to bring civil litigation related to their abuse, regardless of when it happened.

A similar one-year window was enacted in California more than a decade ago, during which approximately 1,000 cases were filed related to child sex abuse. Law firms in New York are likely to exceed that number. Three firms, alone, identified by the New York Law Journal are ready to file more than 1,000 lawsuits collectively.

Those cases are planned to be filed in the coming days, and attorneys have said they expect more victims to approach them with claims throughout the one-year window. Victims don’t have to resolve their litigation by that time, they only have to file it.

That doesn’t mean those cases are expected to drag on for years, which isn’t uncommon for civil litigation. The state Office of Court Administration created a new set of rules in recent weeks to address, specifically, how the state’s courts will handle cases brought under the Child Victims Act during the one-year window.

The last thing state court officials want to see is a backlog of those cases, which could, in turn, lead to delays in unrelated litigation.

To avoid that, they’ve designated special parts in New York City and each judicial district where cases brought during the one-year window will be assigned. Statewide, 45 judges have been designated to hear those cases, with 12 in New York City alone.

Those judges and others have undergone training on the new law and issues that could arise while presiding over civil litigation related to child sex abuse, according to OCA.

When a case is filed, it will remain on the county docket, but be assigned to one of five regionally-designated judges for all pretrial proceedings, including conferences and motions.

In New York City, all cases will be assigned for pretrial proceedings to Justice George Silver, the deputy chief administrative judge for courts within the five boroughs.

Four judges have been chosen outside New York City to preside over pretrial proceedings:

• Justice Michael Mackey will handle cases in the Third and Fourth Judicial Districts in the eastern part of the state. 
• Justice Michael Coccoma will handle cases in the Fifth and Sixth Judicial Districts in Central New York.
• Justice Deborah Chimes will handle cases in the Seventh and Eighth Judicial Districts in Western New York.
• Justice Terry Jane Ruderman will handle cases in the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts in the New York City suburbs and on Long Island.

To those judges, and other court officials involved in the litigation, OCA issued a reminder alongside the new rules.

“Judges and other court personnel involved in actions revived pursuant to [The Child Victims Act], in the exercise of their discretion in any matter relating to such action, shall be mindful of the statutory directive that such actions be adjudicated in a timely fashion,” the rules read.

To really drive that point home, state court officials have even provided a recommended timeline for judges to “aspire to” in each case. A preliminary conference is recommended to be set within 30 days of the lawsuit’s filing. Discovery is recommended to be finished within a year of that conference.

Judges handling those cases are then recommended to accept dispositive motions, like to throw out or resolve the lawsuit, within 90 days after the close of discovery. Those motions are recommended to be decided within a month after attorneys have filed their briefs on the matter.

If you follow civil litigation in state courts, you’ll know that such an expedited timetable is not the norm. Judges can take months to decide on dispositive motions, alone, which can often delay a case for years before a resolution. The goal, here, is to avoid that and ensure these cases are resolved quickly, and with fewer hurdles.

“The revived Child Victims Act cases are critically important cases, raising numerous challenging legal issues, that must be adjudicated as consistently and expeditiously as possible across the State,” said Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks. “We are fully committed to providing appropriate and sufficient resources to achieve that goal.”

If a case makes it to trial, state court officials recommend that judges schedule the proceeding for shortly after the end of discovery, or after a decision on any dispositive motion, assuming that doesn’t end in the case being resolved.

Attorneys who’ve prepared cases to be filed during the one-year window have said they expect the institutions they’ve targeted, like churches and schools, to settle most cases, rather than pursue them to trial. That’s been the common result in other states that have enacted similar measures, they’ve said.

State court officials have planned for that, as well, by requiring each case to be assigned to one of the state’s 45 designated judges for a parallel alternative dispute resolution track, or ADR, with a goal of settlement. If the case doesn’t settle, it will go to trial before that judge.

Karen Bitar, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw, has represented institutions in cases of alleged employee misconduct, including when Yeshiva University was targeted with claims of sexual abuse and Title IX violations in 2014.

She predicted that cases brought during the one-year window will have a tough time sticking to the state’s recommended deadlines.

“It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and the extent to which ADR is utilized, where most practitioners familiar with New York state court practice think that the timetable, as set, will be hard to meet,” Bitar said. “Even [OCA] recognizes this concern, as it defines its own timetable as something to ‘aspire’ to.”

The court system is also planning to develop and adopt a case management order to provide consistency for the thousands of cases expected to be filed during the one-year window. That’s similar to what the state has done to manage several cases alleging asbestos-related damages.

There’s also the possibility that state lawmakers will extend the one-year window to accommodate victims who don’t have the chance, or don’t feel ready, to pursue litigation over the next year. That was discussed earlier this year by lawmakers, who decided to take a wait-and-see approach at the time.

State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, sponsored the Child Victims Act when it passed the state Legislature this year. He said in an interview with the New York Law Journal that he wants to see how many cases are filed between now and the start of next year’s legislative session in January before proposing to extend the window.

“I would like to see how many cases are filed between now and the session,” Hoylman said. “If we’re seeing many cases over the next few months, I think it’s something the Legislature needs to consider, because it suggests that we need more time.”

There’s no solid estimate on just how many cases will be filed over the next year. Hoylman was surprised to hear that one law firm interviewed by the Law Journal expected to file 550 cases—about half of the cases seen in California during its lookback window in 2003.

But the state’s court system has said it’s prepared for whatever attorneys decide to throw at it, said Hoylman, who also chairs the Judiciary Committee in the state Senate.

“They’re confident in their ability to handle this number of cases but I don’t think anybody really knows what to expect,” Hoylman said.

READ MORE:

Wave of Abuse Lawsuits Under New Child Victims Act Is Expected to Crest in NY

Rockefeller University Sues Insurers for Coverage of Past Child Sex Abuse Claims

NY Archdiocese Sues Insurers After Coverage Denied for Child Sex Abuse Claims