208 A.D.3d 958
N.Y. App. Div.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (John Shapiro, David Sweet, and A.A.) sued under the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g) for sexual abuse by a Syracuse University (SU) graduate student who was employed as a resident advisor in 1981–82. Shapiro was 17 in 1982.
- SU and its Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint; Camp Greylock, Inc. (Marhorn), Michael Marcus, and Lukas Horn (collectively, Greylock) moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were time‑barred and they bore no liability.
- Some alleged abuse occurred in the 1970s at Camp Greylock for Boys in Massachusetts where the same individual had been a counselor/coach.
- A.A. was a New Jersey resident at the time of the alleged Massachusetts abuse; Shapiro and Sweet were New York residents when their claims accrued.
- Supreme Court denied SU/Board’s 3211(a)(7) dismissal as to negligence and negligent hiring/supervision claims and granted Greylock summary judgment dismissing all claims.
- Appellate Division affirmed in part but modified to reinstate the negligence and negligent hiring/supervision claims of Shapiro and Sweet against Greylock (rejecting Greylock’s statute‑of‑limitations and successor‑liability defenses as to those two plaintiffs); A.A.’s claims against Greylock remain time‑barred under Massachusetts law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of allegations to revive claims under CPLR 214‑g (lack of consent) | Shapiro alleged facts showing lack of consent to sexual offense, satisfying CVA revival requirements | SU argued Shapiro failed to plead lack of consent and thus claims are not revived | Court: allegations sufficiently pleaded lack of consent; CVA revival applies (denial of 3211(a)(7) dismissal) |
| Duty and negligence / negligent hiring, supervision, retention, training against SU | SU had a duty and should have known employee’s propensity; pleaded facts sufficient to state claims | SU argued no duty and inadequate pleading of employer’s knowledge of propensity | Court: pleadings liberally construed; alleged duty and employer notice sufficient to survive dismissal |
| Applicability of CPLR 214‑g for abuse occurring in MA and effect of CPLR 202 (borrowing statute) for nonresident plaintiff A.A. | CVA revives claim irrespective of where abuse occurred; claims timely under CPLR 214‑g | Greylock argued Massachusetts statute of limitations controls for accrual outside NY and bars A.A.’s claims | Court: For nonresident A.A., CPLR 202 requires timeliness under both NY and Massachusetts law; MA three‑year SOL bars A.A.’s claims; CVA does not override CPLR 202 |
| Effect of plaintiffs’ New York residency (resident exception) on Greylock summary judgment | Shapiro and Sweet (NY residents) contend CVA revival governs and claims are timely in NY | Greylock argued CVA revival still insufficient; sought summary judgment | Court: resident exception applies; CVA revival governs for Shapiro & Sweet; summary judgment dismissing their claims was error; claims reinstated. Greylock also failed to establish lack of successor liability |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Hatton, 26 NY3d 364 (defines sufficiency for lack‑of‑consent allegations)
- Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (pleading rules; favorable inferences)
- AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582 (motion to dismiss standards)
- EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11 (collapse of merits inquiry on dismissal)
- Global Fin. Corp. v Triarc Corp., 93 NY2d 525 (accrual/place-of-injury rule and application of borrowing statute)
- Tanges v Heidelberg N. Am., 93 NY2d 48 (resident exception to CPLR 202)
- Jackson v New York Univ. Downtown Hosp., 69 AD3d 801 (negligent hiring/supervision standard)
- Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239 (successor liability principles)