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."
READ MORE:
'A Very Different Court System': Marks Says There's No Timeline for Lifting Ban on New 'Nonessential' Lawsuits in NY
New York Court System Plans to Relax Coronavirus Restrictions
'Herculean Effort': DiFiore Hails Results of NY's Expanded Virtual Court Operations
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
© 2025 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 AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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