Child Victims Actions May Be Filed Before Window Closes, Despite New Lawsuit Ban, Court Official Says
There has been deep uncertainty over whether a tolling order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo—which paused statutes of limitation—will apply to the act's one-year window.
May 06, 2020 at 06:29 PM
5 minute read
Despite a ban on new lawsuits imposed during the coronavirus outbreak, New York State's Unified Court System will give survivors of child sex abuse an opportunity to file their claims before time runs out on a "look-back window" opened for older accusations, according to a state court spokesman.
There's no specific date on when survivors will be able to file, but New York court system spokesman Lucian Chalfen said they will make an accommodation to allow new cases to be filed under the Child Victims Act before the deadline in August.
"We will not prevent new filers from having their day in court," he said Tuesday in a statement on the law, which opened a year "look-back" period that allowed victims of child sex abuse to sue over claims previously barred by statutes of limitation.
Lawyers and accusers have deep uncertainty over whether a tolling order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo—which paused statutes of limitation—will apply to the act's one-year window.
The executive order said the tolling would go until April 19, but it wasn't immediately clear Wednesday if that has since been extended.
Attorneys for child victims say the situation opens the door for CVA defendants to litigate the matter in court and leverage the uncertainty to their advantage.
Lawmakers and advocates are pushing for a bill to extend the one-year period and give victims more time to file.
But the Legislature have been sidelined since passing the state budget weeks ago and it remains unclear if they will pass the bill. On the line is the extension of a law that has brought a tidal wave of litigation against youth groups, churches and schools.
In March, Cuomo issued an executive order that tolled "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding."
But there's no guarantee the tolling order will apply to CVA lawsuits, said Kat Thomas, an attorney for victims of sexual violence. She expects defendants to push back on the executive order and says there's been a focus on procedural legal strategies from defense lawyers in these cases.
James Marsh, a partner at the Marsh Law Firm, said he believes the tolling applies to CVA lawsuits, but litigation brought after the one-year period will be at risk due to the uncertainty.
He said defense lawyers might make a due process argument under the state constitution and challenge the governor's order.
"They are going to litigate every comma," he said, arguing the uncertainty could become a "field day" for defendants looking to escape liability.
Disagreeing with that assessment was Tom Stebbins, executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, a group comprised of businesses, health care providers and others. The group opposed the CVA's "look-back" window.
Stebbins argued the executive order is written broadly and clearly covers CVA suits. He also accused advocates of using the executive order to stir up political momentum for an extension to the act's revival period.
State lawmakers took a pass on extending the CVA's legal window through the state budget process.
Still, state Sen. Brad Hoylman and state Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal have sponsored a bill that would extend the CVA revival period for another year.
Opponents to the extension argue that institutions deserve some finality to the outstanding lawsuits against them. They also argue an extension is unnecessary and the act has been highly publicized.
To advocates and child victim attorneys, the COVID-19 pandemic only intensified the need for an extension to the "look back" window, especially considering to the societal upheaval triggered by the virus. In particular, they say access to certain documents and records has been cut off due to the virus.
For his part, Cuomo has issued tepid responses on extending the CVA revival period as of late.
"[Would] I sign a bill?" he said at a press conference last week. "Depends on what the bill say, and I would need to see the bill and then make a decision."
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 AllHochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
Court System Names New Administrative Judges for New York City Courts in Leadership Shakeup
3 minute readRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
Trending Stories
- 1Former McCarter & English Associate Fired Over 'Gangsta Rap' LinkedIn Post Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation
- 2First-of-Its-Kind Parkinson’s Patch at Center of Fight Over FDA Approval of Generic Version
- 3The end of the 'Rust' criminal case against Alec Baldwin may unlock a civil lawsuit
- 4Solana Labs Co-Founder Allegedly Pocketed Ex-Wife’s ‘Millions of Dollars’ of Crypto Gains
- 5What We Heard From Litigation Leaders This Year
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