Legislation that would potentially render moot Chautauqua County’s attempt to have two Adult Victims Act sex abuse lawsuits against the county dismissed has been sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul for her signature.

A.6138/S.5916 passed the state Assembly by a 140-1 vote near the end of the session, with Assemblymen Andrew Goodell, R-Jamestown, and Joe Giglio, voting in favor of the bill. It passed the state Senate unanimously in late May.

The legislation rectifies a legislative oversight in the Adult Victims Act, passed in 2022, that has led to motions to dismiss Adult Victims Act lawsuits because proper notice of claim hadn’t been filed against municipalities. The bill sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-New York City, and Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, D-New York City, makes clear that the Adult Survivors Act does not require the filing of a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim.

Hoylman-Sigal gave an affidavit that has been used in the court fight over the notice of claim for Adult Victims Act cases that was filed in both Chautauqua County court cases.

“I was centrally involved in the ASA’s introduction, drafting and passage and am fully aware of the legislative intent underlying the ASA,” Hoylman-Sigal said in his affidavit. “It was always the legislative intent to, among other things, eliminate the notice of claim and notice of intention to file as a condition precedent or requirement for all claims and causes of action revived by the ASA. Indeed, the plain language of the ASA eliminates such conditions, precedent and requirements.”

But that wasn’t how some judges across the state saw the legislation. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Healy in Wayne County saw a similar argument in an Adult Victims Act case and ruled the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state should have enacted a specific notice of claim exemption as it did in the Child Victims Act. State Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon allowed both cases against Chautauqua County to move forward, writing in her decision ruling against the county’s motion to dismiss the cases that the state Legislature’s intention was clear despite not specifically waiving notice of claim deadlines for cases that typically have to be filed before someone sues a government entity.

“I believe the notice of claim is not required for, one, a plain reading of the statute; two, from reading the supporting bill jacket, and also from the legislature’s previous legislation regarding children where they explicitly excluded it,” Hanlon said in her decision from the bench according to a transcript filed by the court. “They obviously, from their legislative intent, wanted these claims to be revived in a certain period of time. I think the defendant’s interpretation of the ASA is strained. So I am going to deny both …”

Pending Hochul’s signature on A.6138/S.5916, there will be no confusion as to the legislature’s intent.

“While the ASA is clear that a notice of claim or notice of intention to file a claim is not required, this legislation will further clarify that such notices are not necessary in a claim revived by the ASA,” Rosenthal and Hoylman-Sigal wrote in their legislative justification.