You are here: / / THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED...
, , , , ,

THE SEVEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN NYC’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW (VGM) IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE ONE-YEAR OR THREE-YEAR CPLR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT S CORPORATION MAY BE ONE AND THE SAME, THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, reversing Supreme Court, determined the seven-year statute of limitations in NYC’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGM) was not preempted by the one-year statute of limitations for assault in the CPLR and the negligent hiring and supervision cause of action should have survived the motion to dismiss even though the S corporation (PDR) and the defendant (Rofe) may be one and the same. The complaint alleged plaintiffs were subjected to unwanted sexual touching by defendant Rofe during voice-over coaching sessions offered by defendant S corporation (PDR):

… [W]e find that the legislative intent of the VGM was to create a civil rights remedy or cause of action such as in VAWA, rather than to extend the statute of limitations for a particular class of assaults. Since the nature of the claim is for a civil rights violation (providing a remedy for those subjected to violence because of their gender), the seven-year limitations period provided in the Administrative Code is not preempted by the CPLR statute of limitations for assault claims. * * *

To be sure, defendants may be correct that PDR essentially has no corporate structure separate from Rofe. Plaintiffs themselves do not appear to distinguish between Rofe and PDR in their brief. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Rofe was an employee of PDR and, through the submission of additional evidence in opposition to the motion to dismiss, have also sufficiently alleged that there may have been other employees of PDR who either hired, or supervised Rofe or whom Rofe hired or supervised. The acts of a corporation’s agent and the knowledge acquired by the agent are presumptively imputed to the corporation … . Thus, Rofe’s knowledge (as an alleged agent of PDR) that an employee was potentially violent or prone to sexual assaults would normally be imputed to PDR, potentially requiring PDR to supervise that employee, and the cause of action for negligent hiring and supervision should be reinstated as against PDR … . Engelman v Rofe, 2021 NY Slip Op 01321, First Dept 3-2-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISMCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN (YEMENI), HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND SEX DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS WERE NOT UNTIMELY BECAUSE A CONTINUING COURSE OF CONDUCT LEADING UP TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLAINTIFF IN DEFENDANT GYM’S STEAM ROOM WAS FORESEEABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AS A MATTER OF LAW; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR ASSAULTS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT).
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.
WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DEFAULT NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT BECAUSE IT DID NOT... THE PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH THE GOAL...