CVA claim in New York

2024While the decisions in the Second, Third, and Fourth Department's CVA cases generally acknowledge claimant's age or status as a child when explaining the challenge of providing an exact date or dates or location when the sexual abuse took place, it is the passage of time since the incident occurred that is a more compelling explanation for the lack of "calendrical exactitude." ( Pisula v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of NY , 201 AD3d 88 , 104 [2d Dept 2021].) Moreover, if the precise age of the claimant was determinative, it would surely be reflected in the Appellate Divisions' analyses.

2024While the decisions in the Second, Third, and Fourth Department's CVA cases generally acknowledge claimant's age or status as a child when explaining the challenge of providing an exact date or dates or location when the sexual abuse took place, it is the passage of time since the incident occurred that is a more compelling explanation for the lack of "calendrical exactitude." ( Pisula v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of NY , 201 AD3d 88 , 104 [2d Dept 2021].) Moreover, if the precise age of the claimant was determinative, it would surely be reflected in the Appellate Divisions' analyses.

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024However, on appeal, the Second, Third, and Fourth Departments have consistently rejected the notion that failure to set forth a specific date when the claim arose renders a CVA claim jurisdictionally defective. ( See Young v State of New York , 223 AD3d 985 , 985-986 [3d Dept 2024] [claim alleging childhood sexual abuse biweekly for about five months in approximately 1965 at the age of 10 was sufficient]; Ford v State of New York , 220 AD3d 752 , 754 [2d Dept 2023] [allegations that abuse occurred in approximately 1997 enabled the State to investigate]; Rodriguez v State of New York , 219 AD3d

2024Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmovant and drawing every available inference in his favor ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 763 [2016]), we conclude that defendant failed to eliminate the material issue of fact whether there were "any circumstances . . . in which [plaintiff] d[id] not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in [defendant's] conduct" during the relevant time period (Penal Law former § 130.05 [2] [c]) and, in any event, plaintiff's submissions in opposition to the motion raised an issue of fact in that regard ( see generally Alvar

2024Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmovant and drawing every available inference in his favor ( see De Lourdes Torres v Jones , 26 NY3d 742, 763 [2016]), we conclude that defendant failed to eliminate the material issue of fact whether there were "any circumstances . . . in which [plaintiff] d[id] not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in [defendant's] conduct" during the relevant time period (Penal Law former § 130.05 [2] [c]) and, in any event, plaintiff's submissions in opposition to the motion raised an issue of fact in that regard ( see generally Alvar

2023Namely, the State points to another case, Weischel v State of New York ( 211 AD3d 988 [2d Dept 2022]), where the same appellate court dismissed a CVA claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b) based on the claim's failure to specify the time when the alleged abuse occurred by only providing a four-year period between approximately 1999 and 2003.

2023Namely, the State points to another case, Weischel v State of New York ( 211 AD3d 988 [2d Dept 2022]), where the same appellate court dismissed a CVA claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b) based on the claim's failure to specify the time when the alleged abuse occurred by only providing a four-year period between approximately 1999 and 2003.