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
A 2021 BUYBACK AGEEMENT BETWEEN A NATURAL GAS PRODUCER AND A NATURAL GAS SELLER WHICH WAS ENTERED IN ANTICIPATION OF A WINTER STORM WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE PRODUCER’S ABILITY TO DELIVER THE USUAL AMOUNT OF GAS IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED BASED UPON THE “FORCE MAJEURE” CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL 2019 CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT HIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT).
THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE PRESSURED DEFENDANT INTO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD BEEN RELIEVED, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE, GUILTY PLEAS VACATED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST DEPT).
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTINUOUSLY MOP UP TRACKED IN WATER.
RESPONDENT IN THIS CUSTODY AND VISITATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO ASSERT PARENTAL RIGHTS IS ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237, TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PAID BY THE “MORE MONIED” PETITIONER; RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED TO BE A “PARENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237 FOR THE NARROW PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (FIRST DEPT).
THE SCAFFOLD ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING WAS INSECURE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHETHER THERE WAS SAFETY EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS NOT USED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE IT, IS IRRELEVANT (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...