BL DOE 3 v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 199 A.D.3d 1419

Plaintiff alleged sexual abuse by a teacher at East High School (Rochester City School District) during 1972–1973 and sued under the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g), Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state common-law and statutory failure-to-report theories.
Supreme Court denied the School District’s pre-answer CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss several causes of action; the District appealed the denial as to certain claims. The District did not challenge denial as to plaintiff’s negligence claim on appeal.
The Appellate Division reviewed whether the federal claims (Title IX and § 1983) were time-barred and whether the state common-law and statutory failure-to-report claims survived pre-answer dismissal.
The court concluded the federal claims were barred by New York’s three-year residual personal-injury statute and that CPLR 214-g could not be borrowed as a revival/tolling provision for those federal claims. It therefore dismissed the Title IX and § 1983 causes of action.
The court affirmed denial of dismissal of plaintiff’s common-law failure-to-report claim and plaintiff’s statutory failure-to-report claim (Social Services Law §420), finding sufficient factual allegations and supporting affidavits to require discovery and rejecting statutory preemption of the common-law duty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1983 claim is timely	CPLR 214-g (Child Victims Act) revives/tolls otherwise time-barred claims, so §1983 is timely	New York’s 3-year residual PI statute governs §1983; CPLR 214-g is not a revival for that residual statute; claim is time-barred	Dismissed §1983 as time-barred; CPLR 214-g not borrowed as revival for residual PI statute
Whether Title IX claim is timely	Same as §1983: CPLR 214-g makes the claim timely	Title IX borrows NY’s 3-year PI statute; CPLR 214-g cannot be used to revive Title IX; claim barred	Dismissed Title IX as time-barred
Common-law failure-to-report / supervisory duty	School owed in loco parentis duty; complaint plus affidavits allege reports to school officials and witness statements — discovery needed	Move to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state claim	Denied dismissal; affidavits cured pleading defects and raised triable issues requiring discovery
Whether Social Services Law §420 (statutory reporter claim) preempts or subsumes common-law duty	Statutory remedy is cumulative; nothing in §420 shows intent to override common law	Statute provides exclusive private remedy for mandated-reporters, so common-law claim should be displaced	Court rejected preemption; common-law duty and statutory remedy can coexist

Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (N.Y. 1994) (procedural standard for motions to dismiss under CPLR 3211)
Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (federal courts borrow state limitations and related tolling rules for §1983 claims)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1985) (advises broad, uniform characterization for choosing state limitations for §1983 claims)
Curto v. Edmundson, 392 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2004) (applies Owens framework to federal civil-rights claims)
Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1989) (discusses borrowing of state tolling rules and limitations)
Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1980) (federal courts may borrow state limitations but not inconsistent tolling rules)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1985) (§1983 creates remedies, not substantive rights)
Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1994) (school’s in loco parentis duty to supervise students)
Stephenson v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 1031 (N.Y. 2012) (recognition of school supervisory duties)
Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314 (N.Y. 1983) (statutory remedies are cumulative unless statute unmistakably makes them exclusive)
Nice v. Combustion Eng’g, 193 A.D.2d 1088 (4th Dept. 1993) (affidavits may cure pleading defects on pre-answer CPLR 3211 motions)