NYS top court to weigh level of specificity under Child Victims Act

ALBANY — The Court of Appeals will consider an allegation of child rape from nearly 40 years ago that could impact lawsuits brought against the state under the Child Victims Act.

The 2019 law temporarily suspended the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse claims to allow New Yorkers to sue over sexual abuse they say they suffered years ago in the private and public sector. Now, a challenge over one aspect of the law has revealed “inconsistent” decisions by judges over the standards they applied, which has led to some dismissals of lawsuits against the state.

The judges differed in how much detail someone who said they suffered sexual abuse as a child must remember for a case against the state to go forward.

The issue pits the understanding that the memory of childhood trauma years after abuse is likely incomplete versus the right of the accused to have a fair trial based on evidence. Of the more than 10,800 cases brought under the Child Victims Act, about 300 are against the state, its agencies and programs, court records stated.

The case is brought by Chi Bartram Wright of New York City. His lawsuit against the state says that as a child he was raped repeatedly from 1986 to 1990 in the bathrooms and stairwells of the state government complex where his mother worked in Albany. But he couldn’t recall when, how many times or other details about how he says he was systematically assaulted by state workers and others.

“This has haunted me for most of my adult life,” Wright told NBC 4 New York after he filed his lawsuit in 2021. “It is hard to process and come forward. But for me it was essential because the secrets and shame was killing me.”

Wright’s attorney didn’t respond to a request for comment.

At issue in Wright’s case are “pleading requirements.” The state Court of Claims Act that governs such lawsuits against the state demands “a reasonable degree of specificity.” That usually requires dates, identity of individuals and other details before a lawsuit against the state can go forward. And while the Child Victims Act temporarily suspended the statute of limitations on civil action from sexual abuse against children, the State Legislature didn’t relax the pleading requirements.

The state Court of Claims dismissed Wright’s case in 2022, saying his accusation was too “vague.” The court said detailed accusations are needed so the state can “investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability.”

Wright appealed the decision to the Appellate Division and won.

“It is not reasonable to expect the claimant to be able to provide exact dates when each instance of abuse occurred, nor is it required,” the panel of appellate judges said in November.

The panel concluded that Wright’s time frame of 1986 through 1990 was enough to comply with the pleading requirements.

Now the state Attorney General’s Office is appealing the case and seeking clarity on the issue from the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

“The purpose of the CVA was simply to revive claims, not to guarantee their success or to permit them to bypass all other jurisdictional requirements,” said Kevin Hu, the state’s assistant solicitor general, in a recent motion.

Similar concerns have been reported in other states.

When the District of Columbia moved to eliminate the statute of limitations on sexual abuse crimes in 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union warned: “As more time lapses between an alleged commission of a crime and the prosecution, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for the accused to prepare a meaningful defense and provide exculpatory evidence — memories fail, witnesses die and records are lost.”

In New York, the Wright case revealed there have been some inconsistent court rulings in CVA cases against the state.

“At first, most Court of Claims decisions applied the long-standing case law to dismiss CVA claims … [with] only a broad range of dates, or failed to adequately describe the nature of the claim,” the attorney general’s legal brief stated. “But some decisions exempted the CVA claims from strict compliance.”

For example, one Court of Claims judge found it was “unreasonable” to require a person bringing a CVA lawsuit “to specify the time and nature of the abuse,” according to the state’s brief, which noted the appellate court also “continued the pattern of inconsistent results.”

“Even if there is a good policy reason to depart from this [evident] requirement,” the attorney general’s office said in the Wright case, “the request for a change should be addressed to the Legislature rather than the judiciary.”

By Michael Gormley

michael.gormley@newsday.com@GormleyAlbany

Michael Gormley has worked for Newsday since 2013, covering state government, politics and issues. He has covered Albany since 2001.