You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS...
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IX AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION, BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER IN 1972 AND 1973, ARE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Title IX and 42 USC 183 causes action, based upon allegations plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher in 1972 – 1973, were time barred:

“The federal civil rights statutes do not provide for a specific statute of limitations, establish rules regarding the tolling of the limitations period, or prescribe the effect of tolling” … . Thus, “courts entertaining claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [and Title IX] should borrow the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions” … . Where a state “has one or more statutes of limitations for certain enumerated intentional torts, and a residual statute for all other personal injury actions[,] . . . the residual or general personal injury statute of limitations applies”… . Here, defendant correctly contends, and plaintiff does not dispute, that New York’s three-year statute of limitations for non-specified personal injury claims applies to the federal causes of action asserted here (see CPLR 214 [5] …).

… Plaintiff contends that CPLR 214-g, which revives certain civil claims and causes of action for damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse that would otherwise be barred by a statute of limitations, must be borrowed along with CPLR 214 (5) in determining whether her federal causes of action are timely. …

We … conclude that CPLR 214-g is not a revival statute related to the residual personal injury statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff’s section 1983 cause of action … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff’s Title IX cause of action should also have been dismissed as time-barred. BL DOE 3 v Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 2021 NY Slip Op 06480, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

You might also like
Expert’s Affidavit Too Speculative to Raise Question of Fact About Proximate Cause
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD AN ARREST WARRANT, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE PROVED THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE PAROLE ABSCONDER WHEN THEY APPROACHED HIM, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE PURSUIT OF THE DEFENDANT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS WHO FIRST APPROACHED DEFENDANT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARREST WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER’S PRIVATE NUISANCE, PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGED NOXIOUS ODORS FROM DEFENDANT’S LANDFILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF TAX ESTOPPEL PREVENTED DEFENDANTS FROM ASSERTING FACTS ABOUT THE SALE OF PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE INFORMATION IN THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER REPORT, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER REMOVING THE FLASHING AND CAULKING AROUND A SECOND-STORY WINDOW, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO LOWER THE LIFT TO THE GROUND TO GO THE BATHROOM; THE UNSECURED WINDOW FELL ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Insufficient Proof of Value of Stolen Property, Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted, Identification Testimony Improperly Admitted, Prosecutor Improperly Vouched for Witnesses—New Trial Ordered
Action Challenging a City Resolution to Sell City Property to an Identified Purchaser Is a Challenge to an Administrative Act and Is Therefore Governed by the Four-Month “Article 78” Statute of Limitations

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 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF...