Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss a negligence complaint as time-barred. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the Child Victims Act’s statute of limitations revival window, arguing it violated due process. The court rejected this argument, finding the revival window was a reasonable legislative response to remedy historical injustices against child sexual abuse survivors. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet its initial burden to prove the claim was barred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5) should be denied when the claim is revived by the Child Victims Act
- Whether the Child Victims Act revival statute violates the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution
Holdings
- The motion to dismiss was properly denied; the revival statute is valid and the school failed to meet its burden of showing the claim was time‑barred.
- The revival statute does not violate due process; it is a reasonable response to remedy the injustice caused by the statute of limitations.
Key quotations
“On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the cause of action has expired.” (at 742)
“[A] claim‑revival statute will satisfy the Due Process Clause of the State Constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice.” (at 400)
Factual background
A minor alleged sexual abuse by Poly Prep Country Day School. The Child Victims Act revived the claim despite the original statute of limitations having run. The school sought dismissal as time‑barred.
Procedural history
The plaintiff filed a CVA‑based sexual‑abuse claim in Kings County Supreme Court. The school moved to dismiss as time‑barred under CPLR 3211(a)(5). The trial court denied the motion. The school appealed.