650 F.Supp.3d 213
S.D.N.Y.2023Background
- E. Jean Carroll previously sued Trump for allegedly defamatory statements stemming from her 2019 public allegation of an earlier sexual assault (Carroll I); that suit did not assert the underlying assault because the limitations period then had expired.
- New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), N.Y. CPLR § 214-j, creating a one-year revival window for otherwise time‑barred civil claims for adult sexual assault, effective November 24, 2022.
- Carroll filed Carroll II nine minutes after the ASA took effect, asserting (1) a revived civil claim for rape/groping occurring in the mid‑1990s and (2) libel based on Trump’s October 12, 2022 social‑media statement responding to her announced intent to sue.
- Trump moved to dismiss, arguing (a) the ASA violates the Due Process Clause of the New York Constitution so the sexual‑assault claim remains time‑barred, and (b) the October 12 statement fails to state a libel claim because Carroll did not plead “special damages.”
- At the motion‑to‑dismiss stage the court assumed Carroll’s well‑pleaded allegations true and ruled both defenses meritless: it upheld the ASA under New York due process principles and found the libel claim sufficiently pleaded as libel per se (no special‑damages pleading required).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the ASA under NY Due Process | ASA reasonably remedies an identified injustice (culture of silence; prior insufficient limitations) and revives time‑barred adult sexual‑assault claims | ASA is unconstitutional because legislative materials allegedly fail to justify the injustice and the revival window is unreasonably broad | ASA is constitutional under New York law: revival statutes are evaluated for whether they reasonably address an injustice; Legislature identified injustice and enacted reasonable one‑year window |
| Sufficiency of libel claim / need for special damages | October 12, 2022 written statement accuses Carroll of inventing the rape claim to sell a book and thus disparages her honesty in her profession — libel per se pleaded | Trump: plaintiff must plead special damages (confusing libel vs. slander per se standards); statement not aimed at her profession | Complaint states libel per se (written publication), which does not require pleading special damages; allegations plausibly show harm to Carroll’s profession and reputation |
Key Cases Cited
- World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig., 30 N.Y.3d 377 (N.Y. 2017) (describing New York test: revival statute valid if a reasonable measure to remedy an injustice)
- Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) (upholding revival of time‑barred latent‑injury claims as remedy for identified injustice)
- Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. 1992) (distinguishing standards for slander per se and libel per se)
- Davis v. Ross, 754 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1985) (discussing libel per se doctrines)
- Carroll v. Trump, 498 F. Supp. 3d 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (earlier related decision addressing aspects of Carroll’s prior libel suit)
- Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, 579 F. Supp. 3d 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (rejecting state‑due‑process challenge to an adult sexual‑abuse claim‑revival statute)