Summary
The Second Circuit deferred decision and certified to the New York Court of Appeals whether New York City's two-year revival window under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law is preempted by the earlier revival periods in New York's Child Victims Act and Adult Survivors Act. The court identified unresolved questions of conflict and field preemption, home rule, and the relationship between state and municipal law. Judge Jacobs concurred separately, emphasizing the pending state-court cases awaiting resolution of the issue.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the two-year revival window in New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law is preempted by the earlier revival periods in New York State's Child Victims Act and Adult Survivors Act.
- Whether certification of that unresolved New York-law preemption question to the New York Court of Appeals was appropriate.
Holdings
- Certification was appropriate because the New York Court of Appeals had not addressed whether the CVA and ASA preempt the VGMVPL's revival window, the question had substantial importance to New York public policy, and its resolution would determine the outcome of the appeal.
- The court did not decide the merits of conflict or field preemption. It certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question whether the VGMVPL's two-year revival window is preempted by the earlier revival periods in the CVA and ASA.
Key quotations
“Because no New York court has addressed this question, and because this appeal raises issues of importance to New York, including home rule authority under the New York State Constitution, we defer decision in order to certify the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:” (1)
“Each of these factors favors certification of the main question raised by this appeal.” (15–16)
“This panel will retain jurisdiction to decide the case once we have had the benefit of the views of the New York Court of Appeals or once that court declines to accept certification.” (17)
Factual background
In June 2024, Angelica Parker sued Tal, Alon, and Oren Alexander, alleging that they sexually assaulted her in 2012. Her claims would have been time-barred absent the New York City Council's 2022 amendments to the VGMVPL, which created a revival window for previously time-barred claims. The defendants argued that the earlier revival periods in New York's CVA and ASA preempted the City's later revival period.
Procedural history
Parker sued the Alexander defendants in New York state court under the VGMVPL. The defendants removed the action to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss as untimely. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the CVA and ASA both conflicted with and occupied the field concerning revival windows for sexual-assault and gender-based-violence claims. On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that the New York Court of Appeals had not answered the question and certified it for resolution.
Remand instructions
The Clerk was ordered to transmit the certified question, the opinion, briefs, appendices, and record to the Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction and reserved decision pending the Court of Appeals' response or its refusal to accept certification.