Delgado v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil tort claims arising from alleged sexual assaults, including personal jurisdiction, timeliness of claims, and whether out-of-state incidents could proceed in New York.
The lower court denied Jason Miller's motion to dismiss the claims for sexual assault and battery, violation of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against him.
The appellate court modified the order only to dismiss the IIED claim to the extent it was based on alleged acts occurring in Nevada; it otherwise affirmed.
The court held that New York had personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) [New York long-arm provision allowing specific personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who commits a tortious act within the state], that the alleged New York assaults were sufficiently pleaded and accrued separately as discrete torts, and that those New York-based claims were timely under CPLR 214-j [Adult Survivor Act revival window for certain sexual offense claims]. However, Nevada-based IIED allegations were barred by CPLR 202 [New York borrowing statute applying the shorter foreign limitations period to out-of-state claims] because Nevada's two-year limitations period had expired.
Background
Delgado alleged that Miller repeatedly raped and violently assaulted her in both New York and Nevada. She asserted claims for sexual assault and battery, violation of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), among others. Miller moved to dismiss, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction, untimeliness, res judicata based on a Florida custody and child support proceeding, and failure to state viable claims.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County, denied Miller's motion to dismiss the challenged claims, finding the pleadings sufficient and allowing the New York and Nevada allegations to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order to dismiss only the portion of the IIED claim based on alleged Nevada conduct. It otherwise affirmed, holding that New York-based assault, battery, IIED, and Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act claims were adequately pleaded and timely, and that the Florida proceeding did not preclude this action.
Legal Significance
The decision emphasizes that repeated sexual assaults are treated as separate, independently accruing torts rather than one continuing wrong. It also clarifies that New York's borrowing statute, CPLR 202, can bar claims tied to out-of-state conduct even when related New York claims survive under the Adult Survivor Act. The ruling further confirms that allegations of rape can satisfy the impact and gender-motivated animus elements of a claim under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Act.
In New York sexual assault litigation, each alleged assault is analyzed as a distinct tort with its own place and date of accrual: New York incidents may proceed under the Adult Survivor Act, while out-of-state incidents may still be time-barred under the borrowing statute.