Background
Nerea Amondi brought claims against Promise Home Care Agency, Inc. and its principal, Godfrey Echendu, arising from alleged sexual misconduct. The original complaint appeared to assert time-limited tort claims, but plaintiff sought to amend to add claims she argued were revived under New York’s Adult Survivors Act (ASA), codified at CPLR 214-j. The ASA, enacted in 2022, created a one-year look-back window (which has since closed) for adults to bring sexual assault claims that would otherwise be time-barred.
Plaintiff’s first motion to amend was denied “without prejudice” — the court found the showing insufficient but expressly left the door open for renewal with more detail. Plaintiff missed a scheduled court appearance in connection with the renewed motion, resulting in a default. She then moved under CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate that default, and upon vacatur, to have the amended complaint deemed timely served. Supreme Court, Bronx County (Guzman, J.) granted the motion and allowed the amendment. Defendants appealed.
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The court upheld the vacatur of default under CPLR 5015(a)(1), which requires a showing of reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense (or, here, meritorious claims). On reasonable excuse, plaintiff’s counsel provided a “detailed and credible explanation” of why his office was unaware of the scheduled court appearance — sufficient to show the law office failure was inadvertent rather than willful. The fact that counsel had earlier commenced a separate, duplicative action asserting the same amended claims did not establish dilatory intent or abandonment of the original action.
On the merits of the amended complaint, the court found plaintiff had proffered potentially meritorious claims: defendant Echendu’s alleged conduct constituted a “sexual offense” under Penal Law article 130, and therefore expired assault and battery claims would be properly revived under CPLR 214-j (the Adult Survivors Act). Defendants did not dispute the validity of the amended claims on appeal and failed to include a copy of the amended complaint in the record — a significant omission that further weakened their opposition. On the amendment motion itself, defendants also failed to show that allowing the amended complaint would cause undue prejudice or surprise.
Key Takeaways
- A court’s “without prejudice” denial of a motion to amend is not a final ruling — plaintiffs may refile with a more detailed factual and legal showing, and courts may grant the second motion even after a default on the renewed application provided the CPLR 5015 standard is met.
- Under New York’s Adult Survivors Act (CPLR 214-j), expired assault and battery claims are revived if the underlying conduct constitutes a “sexual offense” under Penal Law article 130 — the provision is not limited to claims explicitly pleaded as sexual assault but extends to assault and battery arising from the same conduct.
- Defendants opposing a motion to amend must include the proposed amended complaint in the record on appeal and must specifically demonstrate undue prejudice or surprise — generalized opposition without these elements will not defeat the motion.
Why It Matters
New York’s Adult Survivors Act created a landmark revival window for adult victims of workplace and institutional sexual assault. Although the original one-year look-back window has closed, litigation involving claims filed during that window — and related procedural battles such as default vacatur, amendment practice, and the scope of the revival provision — continues to work its way through the courts. This decision reinforces that the ASA’s revival language reaches expired assault and battery claims (not just claims explicitly labeled “sexual assault”) when the underlying conduct satisfies Penal Law article 130’s definition of a sexual offense.
For plaintiffs’ counsel handling ASA claims in the First Department, this decision provides procedural guidance: a “without prejudice” denial is not the end — a renewed, more detailed motion can succeed, and even a procedural default on the renewed motion can be vacated with a credible law-office-failure excuse. For defendants in ASA cases, this decision underscores the need to challenge the substantive validity of the revival claim with the proposed complaint in hand, not through generalized procedural opposition.