State Supreme Court justices in Wayne and Rockland counties have completely different views on how to handle claims filed under the Adult Survivors Act.

Two such cases have been filed in state Supreme Court in Mayville – and Chautauqua County has made a similar argument as Wayne and Rockland county officials that the claim against Chautauqua County should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn’t file a timely claim under the state’s General Municipal Law.

Attorney Meghan Hayes of Webster Szanyi in Buffalo argued on Chautauqua County’s behalf that there is no exception in the General Municipal Law waiving claim timelines for Adult Victims Act cases.

When the state Legislature passed the Child Victims Act, it changed Section 50 of the General Municipal Law to waive the typical claims deadlines for Child Victims Act cases. There is no such change for the Adult Victims Act.

“Yet, the legislature chose not to include similar language in CPLR § 214-j (the Adult Victims Act),” Hayes wrote in her memorandum supporting the county’s motion to dismiss one of its two Adult Victims Act lawsuits. “The absence of such language from both the ASA itself and from Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(8), as well as from the Legislature’s description of the ASA, establishes that ASA claimants are required to file notices of claim as to their revived claims before filing their summons and complaint. The Legislature could have dispensed with the notice of claim requirement for revived claims under the ASA, as it had done in the past, but it did not. Therefore, the Legislature clearly intended that ASA plaintiffs would be required to serve notices of claim after their claims were revived, but prior to commencing suit.”

Attorney Ashley Miller of Slater, Slater, Schulman LLP in New York City filed a memorandum in opposition of the motion to dismiss in state Supreme Court in Mayville on Monday. She argues the plain language of the Adult Victims Act eliminates any notice of claim requirement that exists elsewhere in state law, that the legislative intent and history of the Adult Victims Act eliminates the notice of claim the county argues is necessary and that requiring a notice of claim before filing a lawsuit is impractical. She also filed an affidavit from state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, D-New York City and Senate sponsor of the Adult Victims Act, saying it was his intent for the Adult Victims Act to work the same way as the Child Victims Act.

“Defendants not only disregard the plain language of the ASA itself, but also the wealth of available information accompanying the passage of the statute and evidencing the Legislature’s intent, which directly address, and explicitly dispense with, the notice of claim requirement as a precondition to filing suit,” Miller wrote.

ROCKLAND AND WAYNE COUNTY CASES

Miller also entered into evidence for consideration by state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon decisions in two Adult Victims Act cases in Rockland and Wayne counties.

In an eight-page decision issued April 5, state Supreme Court Justice Keith Cornell ruled against Rockland County’s motion to dismiss an Adult Victims Act case in which Rockland County similarly argued the claim hadn’t been filed in a timely fashion.

“There can be no question that the ASA was intended to provide a window of opportunity for filing actions, otherwise time-barred,” Cornell wrote. “Given the brief window that was opened, the argument that the legislature must have intended for the GML Notice of Claims requirements to apply defies logic and stretches credulity to the breaking point. The GML Notice of Claim requirement does not apply to an ASA action.”

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.

“Also, I agree with the defendant’s comparison analysis of the Adult Survivors Act with its companion statute the Child Victims Act,” Healy said in his decision, released from the bench April 8. Miller introduced a transcript of the decision as an exhibit in one of the Chautauqua County Adult Victims Act cases. “When the Child Victims Act was enacted, the legislature simultaneously amended General Municipal Law Section 50-e to state explicitly that the Child Victims Act plaintiffs were not required to serve a notice of claim. The legislature chose not to amend General Municipal Law 50-e to provide for the same exception for the Adult Survivors Act. As a matter of fact, there is a bill currently pending in the legislature to do just that. This court finds that the plaintiff failed to timely file a notice of claim and therefore the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action is granted.”