In the case of N* v County of Westchester, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of negligence claims brought under the Child Victims Act against the City of New York. The plaintiff, referred to here as Z. N., alleged that she was sexually assaulted in 1974–1975 while residing in a foster care group home operated by the Community of St. Mary, Eastern Province. She initiated the action in 2020, within the CVA’s revival window, naming Westchester County and St. Mary as defendants.
After the CVA window closed, Z. N. sought to amend her complaint to include the City of New York. Although the trial court permitted the amendment, it did not decide whether the claims against the City were timely. The City moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5), arguing the claims were time-barred. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed.
The AD2 applied the relation-back doctrine, which allows late claims against new parties if three conditions are met: the claims arise from the same occurrence, the new party is united in interest with the original defendants, and the new party knew or should have known it would have been named but for a mistake. While the first prong was satisfied—the claims against the City arose from the same alleged assaults—the second and third prongs were not.
Z. N. failed to show that the City was united in interest with the original defendants, as she did not establish that the City was vicariously liable for their conduct. She also failed to demonstrate that the City had notice of the action within the limitations period or that it should have known it was a proper party but was omitted due to a mistake.
Because the relation-back doctrine did not apply, the claims against the City were untimely. The court declined to address other arguments, finding them irrelevant in light of its ruling. The decision reinforces the procedural rigor required when attempting to add defendants after statutory deadlines have passed, even in cases involving serious historical abuse.
When the statute runs out, so does the sympathy ....
# # #
DECISION