Should time for suing for ancient abuse claims be extended (retroactively)?

[JBG]

Article in this morning's Journal News (Westchester-Rockland) Decades-old sex-abuse claim against assistant coach puts focus on Nyack schools. Excerpt:

UPPER NYACK − The Nyack school board on Tuesday plans to vote on a resolution to strike the name of a former varsity baseball coach from the home field and scoreboard, scrap a scholarship in his honor and cease a memorial tournament named after him.
At the root of the push by a group of former Nyack baseball players to remove former varsity coach Dave Siegriest's name: accusations of child sex abuse against his longtime assistant coach, Peter Recla.
Why is this all coming up now? And what does it have to do with Siegriest, who died in 2006 at age 43 of pancreatic cancer?

The guy died in 2006. That's 18 years ago. A lawsuit was filed against his assistant coach, Peter Recla, under the Child Victims Act. It basically allows cases with respect to which the Statue of Limitations expired to be filed. Mind you, no one is accusing Siegriest of doing anything wrong. It was for not policing his assistant. And also, the original statue of limitations gave a period of time after the victim achieved majority, I forget whether it's 18 or 21, to file a suit. Allowing ancient allegations to be dredged up is unjust. The defendant may literally have no way of defending him- or herself, since witnesses, likely other students, have long dispersed from the area. Memories fade. This is part of the trend to entropy, both in the law and other areas.

 

[Dekster]

Article in this morning's Journal News (Westchester-Rockland) Decades-old sex-abuse claim against assistant coach puts focus on Nyack schools. Excerpt:

The guy died in 2006. That's 18 years ago. A lawsuit was filed against his assistant coach, Peter Recla, under the Child Victims Act. It basically allows cases with respect to which the Statue of Limitations expired to be filed. Mind you, no one is accusing Siegriest of doing anything wrong. It was for not policing his assistant. And also, the original statue of limitations gave a period of time after the victim achieved majority, I forget whether it's 18 or 21, to file a suit. Allowing ancient allegations to be dredged up is unjust. The defendant may literally have no way of defending him- or herself, since witnesses, likely other students, have long dispersed from the area. Memories fade. This is part of the trend to entropy, both in the law and other areas.

I find it concerning. Here in Virginia, there is no statute of limitations for felonies so they can always go for the criminal prosecution. For civil cases, it is generally 5 years max, sometimes less. Infrequently up to 10 years. It is all based on the legal idea of laches, which as you indicated, is about having to defend yourself from crap that may or may not have happened so long ago you basically can't.

 

[Crepitus]

Article in this morning's Journal News (Westchester-Rockland) Decades-old sex-abuse claim against assistant coach puts focus on Nyack schools. Excerpt:

The guy died in 2006. That's 18 years ago. A lawsuit was filed against his assistant coach, Peter Recla, under the Child Victims Act. It basically allows cases with respect to which the Statue of Limitations expired to be filed. Mind you, no one is accusing Siegriest of doing anything wrong. It was for not policing his assistant. And also, the original statue of limitations gave a period of time after the victim achieved majority, I forget whether it's 18 or 21, to file a suit. Allowing ancient allegations to be dredged up is unjust. The defendant may literally have no way of defending him- or herself, since witnesses, likely other students, have long dispersed from the area. Memories fade. This is part of the trend to entropy, both in the law and other areas.

Should there really be a statute of limitations on sexual abuse at all?

 

[JBG]

I find it concerning. Here in Virginia, there is no statute of limitations for felonies so they can always go for the criminal prosecution. For civil cases, it is generally 5 years max, sometimes less. Infrequently up to 10 years. It is all based on the legal idea of laches, which as you indicated, is about having to defend yourself from crap that may or may not have happened so long ago you basically can't.

You are close. Laches applies in the absence of limitations. But they are premised on the same theory; that someone who is hurt has to act reasonably promptly. There has to be a balance between the rights of a victim and the rights of someone accused. The accused person needs to by able to use the panoply of legal devices to defend himself. He needs witnesses on his behalf. He needs people, including him- or herself with a clear memory. For example, what the weather was like the day of an incident might be important. The presence of other people might be important. Context might be important.

Should there really be a statute of limitations on sexual abuse at all?

Yes. The statute of limitations, in many cases, runs from either the incident or when the victim has reached the age of majority. Here's a good example. Some puts his hand on your shoulder as a greeting. Most of the time that's innocuous or positive. But not always. Should be accused have to remember something that happened say in 1972?

 

[jwoodie]

Should there really be a statute of limitations on sexual abuse at all?

Yes, unless there are special circumstances (e.g., incest) which caused the victim to not come forward earlier.

 

[JBG]

Should there really be a statute of limitations on sexual abuse at all?

New York has always tolled the statute of limitations for minors. The first section of CPLR 208, quoted below (public domain so no copyright), has always been in effect. The Child Abuse Act is the second section:

§ 208. Infancy, insanity. (a) If a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of infancy or insanity at the time the cause of action accrues, and the time otherwise limited for commencing the action is three years or more and expires no later than three years after the disability ceases, or the person under the disability dies, the time within which the action must be commenced shall be extended to three years after the disability ceases or the person under the disability dies, whichever event first occurs; if the
time otherwise limited is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability. The time within which the action must be commenced shall not be extended by this provision beyond ten years after the cause of action accrues, except, in any action other than for medical, dental or podiatric malpractice, where the person was under a disability due to infancy. This section shall not apply to an action to recover a penalty or forfeiture, or against a sheriff or other officer for an escape.

(b)(the "Child Abuse Act" provision) Notwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary and the provisions of any other law pertaining to the filing of a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or special proceeding,with respect to all civil claims or causes of action
brought by any person for physical, psychological or other injury or condition suffered by such person as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against such person who was less than eighteen years of age , incest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of
ncest as defined in section 255.27, 255.26 or 255.25 of the penal law committed against such person who was less than eighteen years of age, or the use of such person in a sexual performance as defined in section 263.05 of the penal law, or a predecessor statute that prohibited such conduct at the time of the act, which conduct was committed against such person who was less than eighteen years of age, such action may be commenced, against any party whose intentional or negligent acts or omissions are alleged to have resulted in the commission of said conduct, on or before the plaintiff or infant plaintiff reaches the age of fifty-five years. In any such claim or action, in addition to any other defense and affirmative defense that may be available in accordance with law, rule or the common law, to the extent that the acts alleged in such action are of the type described in subdivision one of section 130.30 of the penal law or subdivision one of section 130.45 of the penal law, the affirmative defenses set forth, respectively, in the closing paragraph of such sections of the penal law shall apply.

I think CPLR 208, which applies in New York, is eminently fair. I think the second section is not at all fair. How is a person accused going to defend themselves against an action concerning events that happened over thirty years ago?

 

[Zebra]

only 3 voters?

 

[JBG]

only 3 voters?

Now four, though my vote was obvious.