New York Office Obtains Pre-Answer Dismissal of Adult Survivors Act Action on Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata Grounds

(October 2024) - In Doe v. MacFarland, New York Associate Dean Pillarella, a member of the Appellate Practice, recently obtained a pre-answer dismissal of an Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”) action on collateral estoppel and res judicatagrounds on behalf of a school district client.

The plaintiff alleged to have been sexually abused by a teacher, from ages sixteen through twenty-six, on the school district’s property. The plaintiff previously commenced a Child Victims Act (“CVA”) action concerning alleged abuse occurring from ages sixteen through seventeen and resultant “lifelong” emotional injuries said to have resulted from the alleged abuse. Dean, along with Partner Karen L. Campbell and Associate Zac Candelaria, previously obtained a dismissal of the CVA action on the ground that, as found by the Supreme Court, Rockland County, “in all events,” the school district lacked prior notice of the teacher’s alleged sexual propensities.

Five months after the CVA action was dismissed — and mere days before the ASA revival window closed — the plaintiff commenced a separate ASA action, purportedly concerning alleged abuse from ages eighteen through twenty-six. In response, Dean moved to dismiss, pre-answer, on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Regarding collateral estoppel, in particular, Dean argued that the doctrine prevents a party from relitigating an issue which has been previously decided against him/her in a prior proceeding where he/she had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Thus, because prior notice of sexual propensities was an element of each of the plaintiff’s theories of liability, and because the CVA action established the school district’s lack of notice “in all events” of alleged abuse, collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from attempting to relitigate her claims. Dean further stressed that the ASA action asserted the identical causes of action, theories of liability, and sought recovery for the same “lifelong” emotional injuries.

The Supreme Court, Rockland County, agreed and dismissed the ASA action, finding: “The instant action … is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s claim in both [the CVA and ASA] actions arise from the same factual allegations, to wit: [the school district’s] alleged negligence as employer and landowner and [the teacher’s] alleged abuse at [a school with the school district]. Both complaints are nearly identical as to Plaintiff’s theories of damages, liability, as well as prior notice….”

Doe demonstrates that plaintiffs cannot relitigate dismissed CVA actions merely by branding them ASA actions and alleging abuse subsequent to age eighteen. In such cases, a pre-answer dismissal should be sought to avoid unnecessary litigation costs. The Decision and Order in Doe can be found at Index No. 035851/2023, Doc. No. 32.