Attorneys and Parties

Diocese of Brooklyn; Mary Queen of Heaven Catholic Academy
Defendants-Appellants
Attorneys: Mitchell Dranow

Roland Finley
Plaintiff-Respondent
Attorneys: Sara A. Mahoney

Brief Summary

Issue

Whether New York's COVID-19 executive orders tolled the Child Victims Act (CVA) (CPLR 214-g [revival provision allowing previously time-barred civil claims by child sexual abuse survivors to be filed within a special revival window]) so that the CVA window remained open beyond August 14, 2021, and, if so, by how long.

Lower Court Held

The Supreme Court, Kings County, held that the COVID-19 executive orders created a 228-day toll on the CVA revival window, rendering Finley’s March 24, 2022 filing timely.

What Was Overturned

Nothing. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.

Why

The court held that the Governor’s executive orders validly tolled limitation periods, including CPLR 214-g, and that the Legislature’s August 3, 2020 amendment to CPLR 214-g did not supersede or negate the existing tolls. Reading the CVA amendment and the executive orders together, the court found an aggregate 228-day toll, making March 30, 2022 the last day to commence a CVA action.

Background

Finley alleged that, as an approximately 11-year-old student at Mary Queen of Heaven Catholic Academy, he was sexually abused by his choir teacher on at least 20 occasions. He commenced this action on March 24, 2022 under the Child Victims Act (CVA) (CPLR 214-g [revival provision allowing previously time-barred civil claims by child sexual abuse survivors to be filed within a special revival window]). The Academy moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5) [rule allowing pre-answer dismissal as time-barred], arguing the CVA window closed on August 16, 2021 (with August 14, 2021 falling on a Saturday) and that the Legislature’s August 3, 2020 amendment fixed that as the final deadline. The Diocese joined. Finley countered that COVID-19 executive orders tolled the CVA window. The Supreme Court agreed, finding a 228-day toll. On appeal, the defendants argued the CVA amendment superseded the executive orders; Finley maintained all executive orders (both before and after the amendment) tolled the window, consistent with legislative intent. The Appellate Division noted prior decisions (Bethea and Chestnut) recognized at least a 90-day toll from post-amendment executive orders but had not addressed the entire series of orders.

Lower Court Decision

The Supreme Court (Laurence L. Love, J.) denied the motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5), holding that the pandemic-era executive orders tolled the CVA revival period by 228 days and thus made the March 24, 2022 filing timely.

Appellate Division Reversal

Affirmed. The Appellate Division held that all COVID-19 executive orders tolled the CVA window for an aggregate 228 days. The court concluded the CVA amendment did not abrogate the existing tolls, the executive orders and amendment operated in tandem, and the latest date to commence a CVA action was March 30, 2022. Finley’s March 24, 2022 filing was therefore timely.

Legal Significance

Clarifies that the COVID-19 executive orders tolled CPLR 214-g’s revival window for 228 days, not merely the 90 days recognized for post-amendment orders in earlier cases, and that the CVA amendment did not supersede or cancel the toll. Confirms March 30, 2022 as the last day to file revived CVA claims and aligns CVA tolling with established precedent recognizing the executive orders as a valid, aggregate 228-day toll under Executive Law § 29-a [emergency powers to manage state disasters, including suspending/modifying statutes; Legislature may terminate orders].

🔑 Key Takeaway

Under the Child Victims Act (CVA) (CPLR 214-g [revival provision allowing previously time-barred civil claims by child sexual abuse survivors to be filed within a special revival window]), the COVID‑19 executive orders tolled the revival window for a total of 228 days, making March 30, 2022 the final filing deadline. The Legislature’s 2020 CVA amendment expanded the window but did not negate the executive-order tolling.