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
WHEN DEFENDANT BECAME DISRUPTIVE JUST BEFORE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE BROUGHT IN THE JUDGE HAD HIM REMOVED FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT FIRST WARNING HIM AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERTS MAY NOT RELY ON DISPUTED FACTS IN RENDERING AN OPINION IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUN BELT WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE TRIAL; THE LOSS OF TRIAL EXHIBITS DEMONSTRATING WHETHER THE PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES WERE EXHAUSTED IS HELD AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO SEEK A TIMELY RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT)
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (FOURTH DEPT).
GLAZIERS ENROLLED IN AN APPRENTICE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PAID AS APPRENTICES EVEN IF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID IS NOT IN THE SAME TRADE AS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.
LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LACK OF PREPARATION AND FAILURE TO LIMIT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A LACROSSE BALL THROWN BY A COACH DURING PRACTICE, THE ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY EITHER THE SIGNED WAIVER OR THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (FOURTH 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 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SHARING OF CONTINGENCY... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF...