The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department has given the go-ahead to a civil lawsuit in which a movie industry publicist accused Oscar-winning filmmaker Paul Haggis of raping her in 2013.

The ruling, in which the First Department affirmed a trial court's decision, simplified and streamlined pleading requirements under New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.

The panel made it clear, for the first time, that allegations of previous assaults and other extraneous evidence were not needed to establish that an alleged act of rape or sexual assault was motivated by "gender-based animus."

Instead, the court said, such animus was "sufficiently pleaded" by the nature of the crimes alleged.

"Rape and sexual assault are, by definition, actions taken against the victim without the victim's consent," Justice Peter H. Moulton wrote on behalf of the panel. "Without consent, sexual acts such as those alleged in the complaint are a violation of the victim's bodily autonomy and an expression of the perpetrator's contempt for that autonomy."

"Animus," he said, "inheres where consent is absent."

Thursday's decision was the first state appellate ruling to address the pleading requirements of the so-called VGM, a 2000 law passed by the New York City Council in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which struck down a federal civil rights remedy for gender-motivated crimes contained in the Violence Against Women Act.

Under the VGM, victims of violent crimes can sue their attackers for money damages over violent crimes that were committed, at least in part, because of an "animus based on the victim's gender."

The case at issue involved claims by Haleigh Breest, who said Haggis had attacked her in his apartment after they both attended a premier party in January 2013.

Haggis, known for his work on the films "Million Dollar Baby" and "Crash," has strongly denied allegations of wrongdoing, and in 2017 counter-sued his accuser for intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming that Breest had tried to extort him with a $9 million settlement demand.

A New York Supreme Court justice dismissed Haggis' claims in 2018, and let stand Breest's amended complaint under the VGM, which included an expanded account of the encounter, as well as allegations from three unnamed accusers who claimed Haggis had sexually assaulted them in 1996, 2008 and 2015.

The lower court, over the arguments of Haggis' counsel, declined to strike the Jane Doe accounts, finding that they embodied the kind of gender-based animus that is required under the VGM. According to the court, such animus must be alleged against women as a group, and not just a plaintiff who sues under the statute.

The First Department on Thursday upheld the ruling denying Haggis' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but directed the lower court to strike the Jane Doe allegations because they were not necessary to fill out allegations of rape and sexual assault. The court, however, did not rule out that those accounts could still be admissible at trial.

Zoe Salzman, who represents Breest, hailed the decision as a "historic ruling that breathes new life" into the city's gender-motivated violence law, and said it "paves the way to hold Paul Haggis accountable at trial."

Haggis' attorney, Priya Chaudhry, said Thursday that her client has maintained his innocence "since day one" and would ultimately prevail in the lawsuit.

"Mr. Haggis has respected the court's process and now that the allegations from these anonymous women have been stricken, he looks forward to the release of the critical evidence currently being hidden by Haleigh Breest's lawyers," she said in a statement. "This evidence will prove that these allegations against him were outright false from the beginning."

Read More: