You are here: / / THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT, CPLR SECTION 214-J, REVIVES AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED...

THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT, CPLR SECTION 214-J, REVIVES AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED ACTION COMMENCED IN 2005 AND DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN 2009 (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), which is CPLR section 214-j, may be applied to revive an otherwise time-barred action commenced in 2005 and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in 2009. The ASA concerns lawsuits alleging damages for sexual assault:

CPLR 214-j, enacted as part of the ASA and effective May 24, 2022, opened a revival window during which adult victims of sexual abuse could assert civil claims or causes of action against their abusers for acts committed against them when they were 18 years or older that would otherwise be time-barred … . CPLR 214-j provides, inter alia, that “every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense . . . committed against such person who was eighteen years of age or older . . . which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the applicable period of limitation has expired, and/or the plaintiff previously failed to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, is hereby revived.” CPLR 214-j further provides that, “[i]n any such claim or action, dismissal of a previous action, ordered before the effective date of this section, on grounds that such previous action was time barred, and/or for failure of a party to file a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim, shall not be grounds for dismissal of a revival action pursuant to this section.” * * *

The plain language of CPLR 214-j provides that it revives “every civil claim or cause of action” alleging the subject conduct “which is barred . . . because the applicable period of limitation has expired” (emphasis added). The use of the word “every” in describing such claims or causes of action imports no limitation and evidences the Legislature’s intent for revival to apply to all claims and causes of action that would otherwise be barred on statute of limitations grounds … . Esposito v Isaac, 2025 NY Slip Op 04231, Second Dept 7-23-25

Practice Point: The Adult Survivors Act (ASA), CPLR 214-j, revives “every civil claim” alleging damages for sexual assault of persons over 18, including an otherwise time-barred action which was dismissed in 2009 for lack of personal jurisdiction.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY OPTED TO SUE EMPLOYER FOR WORKPLACE INJURY, EMPLOYER DID NOT CARRY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE.
INSURER DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS OF THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE, INSURER MUST DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND THEREFORE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
Non-Constitutional Appellate Issues Re: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test (DWI) Do Not Survive a Guilty Plea
A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND 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 BROKERAGE AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE... PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REQUIRING...