Fenton v. State of New York, 213 A.D.3d 737

Claim commenced in August 2021 under the Child Victims Act (CVA) against the State of New York seeking damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, among other causes of action.
Claimant alleges Curtis West, a counselor at the State-operated Ramapo Community Workshop, sexually assaulted her multiple times beginning about 1982 when she was ~17; abuse continued into 1983.
The Workshop served vulnerable minors and received referrals from a diversionary court project; West had prior misconduct, was terminated in 1982 for failing a civil service test and being "too friendly" with minors, then rehired eight months later.
The claimant reported West circa 1983; West was arrested, prosecuted, pled guilty to rape, and was imprisoned.
The State moved to dismiss under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) for failure to specify exact dates of the alleged abuse; the Court of Claims granted dismissal.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the approximate date ranges (circa 1982–1983) and other factual detail satisfied § 11(b)’s "time when" requirement in the CVA context and remitted the case for consideration of the State’s remaining dismissal grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 11(b) was violated for failing to state exact dates of abuse	Exact calendar dates are unreasonable after decades; approximate years (circa 1982–1983) plus contextual facts and the criminal conviction enable investigation	§ 11(b) requires specificity as a condition of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity; exact dates are necessary to investigate	Reversed: under CVA circumstances, approximate date ranges and contextual allegations satisfied § 11(b)’s "time when" requirement; remand for other defenses
Whether the CVA altered § 11(b) pleading requirements	CVA remedied statutes of limitations but does not eliminate pleading flexibility given survivors’ inability to recall exact dates	CVA did not amend § 11(b); statutory pleading requisites remain and must be met	Court acknowledged CVA did not amend § 11(b) but held that, in context, absolute calendrical exactness is not required to satisfy § 11(b) for long-ago child abuse claims

S.H. v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 205 AD3d 180 (App. Div. 2022) (explaining CVA revival and extended time to sue for historical child sexual abuse)
Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 (Ct. of Appeals 2003) (§ 11(b) requires five substantive particulars to waive sovereign immunity)
Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 NY2d 911 (Ct. of Appeals 1999) (statutory conditions for suit are strictly construed)
Dreger v. New York State Thruway Authority, 81 NY2d 721 (Ct. of Appeals 1993) (discussing strict construction of waiver of sovereign immunity)
Pisula v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 201 AD3d 88 (App. Div. 2021) (recognizing survivors’ approximations of dates in historical abuse claims)
Kimball Brooklands Corp. v. State of New York, 180 AD3d 1031 (App. Div. 2020) ("absolute exactness" not required for § 11(b))
Morra v. State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115 (App. Div. 2013) (addressing sufficiency of particulars under § 11(b))
Heisler v. State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 (App. Div. 1980) (early formulation of § 11(b)’s investigatory purpose)