Background
New York’s Child Victims Act (CVA), codified at CPLR 214-g, created a two-year window — from August 14, 2019 through August 13, 2021 — during which previously time-barred civil claims for childhood sexual abuse could be revived. The statute says nothing expressly about territorial limits: it applies to claims for injury “suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense” under Penal Law article 130 against a child under 18, without specifying where the abuse must have occurred or where the plaintiff must have lived.
Ark448 Doe, a New Jersey resident, filed a CVA claim in July 2021 — within the statutory window — against Maryknoll, alleging she was sexually abused as a child in New Jersey. Supreme Court granted Maryknoll’s motion to dismiss, holding that the CVA did not reach a nonresident plaintiff abused outside New York. The First Department affirmed. Doe also argued that her claims were timely under a New Jersey revival statute, and that those New Jersey claims should survive in New York court. The First Department addressed that argument as well.
The Court’s Holding
The First Department unanimously affirmed dismissal, joining the Second Department in holding that CPLR 214-g is limited to New York residents and does not extend to plaintiffs who were abused outside New York. Because the CVA is “silent on the subject of territorial application,” the court applied a settled canon of statutory interpretation: absent an express statement, no legislation is presumed to operate outside the state that enacted it. The Second Department had previously applied this principle to hold that the CVA does not benefit nonresident plaintiffs whose abuse occurred out of state (S.H. v. Diocese of Brooklyn, 205 AD3d 180 [2d Dept 2022]). The First Department found that reasoning “persuasive” and adopted it: “[L]imiting the application of CPLR 214-g is consistent with the principles of statutory interpretation and does not diminish the protection provided to New Yorkers.”
The court also rejected Doe’s alternative argument that New Jersey’s own revival statute (NJ Stat Ann § 2A:14-2b) could save her claims in a New York court. Even if New Jersey revived the cause of action, New York’s borrowing statute (CPLR 202) applies to claims accruing outside New York: the action cannot be commenced in New York if it is time-barred under either New York or New Jersey law. Because Doe’s claims accrued in New Jersey, both states’ limitations periods must be satisfied. The court found the claims untimely and affirmed dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- CPLR 214-g, the CVA revival window, does not apply to non-New York residents who were abused outside New York. Both the First and Second Departments have now so held.
- A nonresident CVA plaintiff cannot use a sister state’s revival statute to circumvent New York’s borrowing rule (CPLR 202): both states’ limitations periods apply, and the claim is untimely if barred by either.
- The decision leaves open whether a nonresident abused in New York could invoke the CVA — the court’s prior decisions extended the CVA to nonresident plaintiffs abused in New York by New York-affiliated institutions.
- CVA litigation counsel should confirm plaintiff residency and abuse location before filing in New York; geography is now an established threshold issue.
Why It Matters
The First Department’s alignment with the Second Department on CVA territorial scope settles what had been an open question for a substantial subset of CVA claimants: those who lived outside New York, were abused outside New York, and sued New York-based or national institutional defendants. Many religious orders, schools, and other institutions that operate nationally were named in CVA actions by plaintiffs with no New York connection. Those cases are now squarely foreclosed in the Appellate Division.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the ruling reinforces that the CVA is a New York-centric remedy. Survivors abused outside New York must look to their home state’s own revival windows or current limitations periods. Defendants facing CVA suits should scrutinize plaintiff residency and abuse location as a threshold matter, and institutions not yet sued should anticipate that the territorial limitation will sharply narrow the potential universe of CVA claims against them in New York courts.