J.S. Ex Rel. N.S. v. Children of America, Inc., 696 F. App'x 39

Background

Plaintiff J.S., through his mother N.S., sued Children of America, Inc. and Children of America Nyack, LLC (COA) alleging sexual molestation by an employee, Cabrera; a jury returned a verdict for COA and the district court entered judgment for defendants.
J.S. appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings and some of the district court’s courtroom remarks as biased.
Key contested evidentiary rulings: admission of expert testimony by Dr. Kaplan about reliability of child witnesses; exclusion of evidence about Cabrera’s subsequent sexual-offense conviction against another child; limitation/exclusion of testimony/video relating to J.S.’s delayed disclosure; and certain judicial comments/limiting instructions.
Central legal questions concerned the admissibility under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 415, Rule 403 balancing of probative value vs. unfair prejudice, and appropriate bounds of expert testimony and trial-court comments.
The Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Kaplan’s testimony on child-witness reliability	Kaplan’s answers were non-responsive and improperly suggested facts; testimony should have been excluded	Testimony explained general reliability concerns and did not opine on J.S.’s credibility	Court affirmed admission: expert did not state disbelief of J.S. and did not usurp jury’s role; no abuse of discretion
Admission of Cabrera’s other sexual-offense conduct (Rule 415 / Rule 404(b))	Other-act evidence (admission, plea, conviction) corroborates J.S. and should be admitted under Rule 415 or as 404(b) corroboration	Rule 415 applies only to acts by a party; under 404(b) the other-act evidence had low probative value and high risk of unfair prejudice	Court affirmed exclusion: Rule 415 inapplicable because Cabrera was not a party; 404(b) evidence properly excluded after Rule 403 balancing
Admission of Rodriguez’s testimony/video of J.S.’s delayed disclosure	Full testimony and video showing J.S.’s statements should be admitted to corroborate substance of disclosure	Testimony/video include out-of-court assertions and carry high risk jury will treat them as substantive proof; limiting admissible testimony to non-hearsay purpose was proper	Court affirmed exclusion/limitation: district court permissibly limited evidence to avoid undue prejudice and hearsay risk
Alleged judicial bias in certain courtroom comments and instructions	Two district-court statements improperly commented on merits and biased the jury	Court’s comments were clarifying or neutral limiting instructions and did not influence jury	Court found no impermissible bias or prejudice; statements were explanatory and did not mislead jury

Key Cases Cited

Sheng v. M&T Bank Corp., 848 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (deference under abuse-of-discretion review)
Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion deference explained)
Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) (framework for Rule 404(b) analysis)
United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1990) (admissibility when other act nearly identical)
United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984) (admissibility when idiosyncratic details match)
United States v. Davis, 624 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognition of high prejudice risk from prior child-molestation convictions)
Care Travel Co., Ltd v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 944 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1991) (trial-court clarifying comments to avoid juror confusion)
United States v. Filani, 74 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 1996) (limiting instructions and jury as sole fact-finder)