Make your contribution now and help Gothamist thrive in 2025. Donate today

New York City's Law Department is delaying action on many gender-motivated violence lawsuits that would hold the city liable for abuses, as the City Council hashes out a new bill meant to give survivors a clearer path for accountability. Advocates say the pause could affect hundreds of cases.

The bill would reopen a new "lookback" window for survivors to sue even if the statute of limitations had passed -- with language clarifying the lawsuits over older incidents can target institutions like the city, not just individuals. It would provide an opportunity to revive more than 450 lawsuits against the city that a Bronx judge tossed out in September because he found a law creating a previous lookback, from 2023 to earlier this year, wasn't clear on that point.

The legislation would also let lawsuits filed under the prior lookback -- the ones the Law Department will put on pause -- proceed without being vulnerable to being dismissed for the same reason.

Council Speaker Adrienne Adams has faced criticism from victims, advocates and some of her fellow lawmakers for not moving on the bill, which was initially introduced in May and has broad support from the Council, with 41 of its 51 members as sponsors. But Council spokesperson Julia Agos said lawmakers are taking a "deliberative approach" in negotiating the bill with stakeholders "to avoid more errors and legal obstacles from a rushed process that leaves survivors without a resolution."

Agos said the Law Department's decision to table cases through the end of the year came out of those negotiations and will "ensure survivors don't have their case dismissed while negotiations proceed on changing the law." A department spokesperson declined to comment when asked how many cases that would apply to, but attorneys for plaintiffs estimate it would affect hundreds.

If the new version of the law is approved, survivors would have one year from March 1, 2026 to file new suits for incidents that occurred before 2022. As with the original lookback period, the underlying incidents could go back indefinitely. The 450 dismissed cases -- going back as far as the 1960s, over allegations the city failed to protect people in juvenile centers -- and other existing lawsuits could proceed as well.

The bill's sponsor, Selvena Brooks-Powers, said she's hopeful the bill will come to a vote soon.

"We're in active negotiations, and so our goal is to bring this to a vote at the Nov. 25 stated meeting so that survivors can have the clarity that they need before the end of the year," she said.

Some attorneys representing clients in gender-motivated violence cases filed during the original lookback window said their clients have waited long enough.

Jerome Block, an attorney representing many plaintiffs in juvenile detention cases, said the Law Department's move to adjourn cases signals the bill may be passed soon, and urged the Council to act on it quickly.

"On behalf of hundreds of survivors that were sexually abused as children in New York City juvenile detention centers, we are calling on the City Council to move [the bill] to a vote as soon as possible," he said. "It's a difficult position for these hundreds of survivors who are facing potential dismissal of their cases to wait for this legislative process to get to the point where the changes in this law are made."

Jordan Merson, an attorney representing accusers of late financier Jeffrey Epstein, said he doesn't understand why there is a delay for a bill with so much support.

"We need the law passed because there are sexual abuse survivors who have done nothing wrong who need help now, they can't wait until next year," Merson said. "They need this law to pass."

According to a review by the city's Office of Management and Budget, the new bill could cost the city $1 billion if passed. Agos said negotiations have included "consideration of creating a settlement fund" that would allow survivors to attain the accountability they deserve without having to fight their cases in court and the city to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars."

Brooks-Powers said the settlement fund is still under discussion and is one of several tools being considered to address the bill's fiscal impact. But she said the focus should be on the victims.

"When we talk about someone who has experienced sexual abuse, there's really no dollar amount that can be associated with that," she said. "So for me, I think it is never a good thing to lead in the conversation with cost when we are trying to hold entities accountable for their role in situations that have forever changed the lives of those who have been impacted."

Both Block and Merson declined to comment on the settlement fund.