New York Lawmakers Decline Chance to Extend 'Look-Back Window' in Child Victims Act
Even with lawyer advertising and press coverage of the CVA, many potential plaintiffs still haven't learned about the law or decided to come forward, an attorney said.
April 07, 2020 at 12:38 PM
5 minute read
State lawmakers took a pass last week on extending a one-year legal window that allowed survivors of child sex abuse to sue over decades-old allegations.
The Child Victims Act, enacted last year, opened up the time frame for victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits over claims that were previously barred from court due to the statute of limitations.
The legal window is set to close in August, but New York's court system is no longer accepting CVA lawsuits under new restrictions spurred by the deadly coronavirus pandemic. The state's court system has postponed all "nonessential" services and the CVA lawsuits were not listed as essential under an order from Lawrence Marks, the state's chief administrative judge.
Those orders have effectively placed a hold on new litigation under the act, but the Legislature did not move to lengthen the so-called look-back window in the state budget, which is the keystone legislative package of the year in Albany and is often used as a vehicle for large non-fiscal policy measures.
The coronavirus crisis has upended normal business at the Capitol, but legislative leaders have said they need to continue their work in some fashion. It remains unclear whether legislators will greenlight an extension to the CVA later on this session.
Melissa DeRosa, secretary to the governor, said April 4 there was no conversation about an extension to the legal window in budget talks. She also mentioned lawmakers have the ability to vote remotely.
"So if there's something that we need to revisit and they're not able to come back, it's always on the table," she said.
At the same press conference, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the legislative session was "effectively over." He hedged the comments by saying it will be up to the Legislature to decide.
State Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan, on Monday told the Law Journal the state Senate raised the CVA extension in budget negotiations and it was discussed. But, he said the extension was rejected at some point.
Cuomo last month paused the state's statute of limitations through an executive order, tolling "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding."
Hoylman said some people believe the order would apply to the one-year legal window.
But he argued the executive order is unclear in regard to the CVA. Even if the order does apply, he said, it could become a legal question that defendants try to use to their advantage in court.
"It wasn't written with the [CVA] in mind, specifically," said Hoylman, who has argued the order effectively ended the CVA look back window.
In any case, the Manhattan Democrat said victims deserve more time to file their lawsuits, particularly due to the upheaval brought by the coronavirus pandemic.
For the Marsh Law Firm, which represents about 700 people with potential CVA claims, of which some 150 to 200 have actually sued, the pandemic is especially frustrating because a long stay on CVA cases in New York City was lifted in February, just before the crisis struck. Discovery was set to move forward quickly, but is now on hold for 90 days, said Jennifer Freeman, senior counsel at the firm.
James Marsh, a partner at the firm, said the firm believes that Cuomo's tolling of statutes of limitations has extended the deadline to file cases through Sept. 14, from Aug. 14, and said subsequent tolling could push it out further. Still, Freeman said she believes legislators still need to act to extend the CVA window into 2021, saying other states have longer time frames to sue.
While one defendant, Rockefeller University, is engaged in settlement talks, others are holding off, Freeman said.
Even with lawyer advertising and press coverage of the CVA, many potential plaintiffs still haven't learned about the law or decided to come forward, she added. The pandemic has been a particularly hard time for many of them, causing them to "retreat internally" instead of deciding to come forward with their stories.
In the meantime, she said, health risks are mounting for the firm's aging CVA clients, one of whom has already died and another of whom has a stage-four cancer.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
- 2GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
- 3Legal Events for Georgia Lawyers
- 4'There is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
- 5The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250