Parker v. Alexander

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
• Writing for the Court: Lewis A. Kaplan, District Judge.
• Citation: Parker v. Alexander, 779 F.Supp.3d 361 (S.D. N.Y. 2025)
• Docket Number: 24-cv-4813 (LAK)
• Decision Date: 22 January 2025
• Parties: Angelica PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Tal ALEXANDER, Alon Alexander, and Oren Alexander, Defendants.
• topic: Civil Rights,Contracts,Criminal Law,Ongoing or Prospective Litigation

779 F.Supp.3d 361

Angelica PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Tal ALEXANDER, Alon Alexander, and Oren Alexander, Defendants.

24-cv-4813 (LAK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed January 22, 2025

Michael John Willemin, Brooke Payton, Wigdor LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Isabelle A. Kirshner, Brian David Linder, Efrat Blassberger, Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Alon and Oren Alexander.

Deanna Paul, Milton L. Williams, Jr., Walden Macht Haran, & Williams LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Tal Alexander.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lewis A. Kaplan, District Judge.

Plaintiff Angelica Parker brings this suit under New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law ("VGMVPL")¹ against defendants Tal, Alon, and Oren Alexander. The complaint alleges that plaintiff in the fall of 2012 went to Oren's home, where Oren's brothers Tal and Alon sexually assaulted her.² Before the Court are motions (1) by defendants Alon and Oren to dismiss and to strike portions of the complaint, and (2) by defendant Tal for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint against him,³ These raise the question whether the revival provision of the City's VGMVPL is preempted in part by state statutes.

Factual Background⁴

Plaintiff alleges that she developed a brief personal relationship with Oren Alexander in or around 2012.⁵ That fall, Oren allegedly invited plaintiff to the residence where he lived with his brothers Alon and Tal.⁶ Plaintiff alleges that, after she arrived, Alon and Tal raped her while Oren sat and watched.⁷ She alleges also that Tal years later attempted to sexually assault her again, but relented after she screamed so that others nearby could hear.⁸

Discussion

1. Legal Standard

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must plead sufficient facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."⁹ "The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim."¹⁰ In most cases, a claim is plausible on its face if "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."¹¹ This pleading requirement is satisfied by "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."¹² "[W]hen considering a preemption argument in the context of a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations relevant to preemption must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."¹³

2. Statute of Limitations and Revival Provisions

The statute of limitations for a claim under the VGMVPL ordinarily is seven years.¹⁴ The VGMVPL limitations period for conduct in the fall of 2012 therefore expired in fall 2019. However, in January 2022, the New York City Council amended the VGMVPL by creating a two-year window for the revival of otherwise time-barred claims under the law ("VGMVPL Revival Amendment" or "Amendment"). That window opened on March 1, 2023, and closes on March 1, 2025.¹⁵ Plaintiff contends that this suit — filed on June 18, 2024 — is timely based on the Amendment. Defendants counter that the Amendment is preempted by New York State's Adult Survivors Act,¹⁶ which created a one-year window for the revival of otherwise time-barred civil claims arising out of certain sexual offenses committed against adult victims. That window opened on November 24, 2022, and closed exactly one year later in November 2023¹⁷ — more than six months before plaintiff brought this action.

The Court addressed this issue in Bellino v. Tallarico.¹⁸ As here, the plaintiff in Bellino brought a VGMVPL claim outside the ordinary statute of limitations and relied on the VGMVPL Revival Amendment.¹⁹ The Court concluded that the VGMVPL Revival Amendment in relevant part is preempted by the State's Child Victims Act ("CVA")²⁰ and the Adult Survivors Act ("ASA").²¹ As no opposition was filed to the defendant's motion to dismiss in Bellino, however, the Court did not have the benefit of full briefing in that case. It therefore considers the issue here de novo.

A. Preemption Standard

The VGMVPL Revival Amendment is a local New York City enactment. The predicate of defendants' position is that the ASA and the CVA are New York State statutes which, in relevant part, preempt the claim revival provision of the Amendment.

The New York State Constitution's home rule provision authorizes municipalities to adopt local laws in certain fields so long as they are "not inconsistent" with the Constitution or general state laws.²² "The doctrine of preemption acts as a significant restriction on the home rule powers of municipalities. Local laws may be inconsistent with and preempted by state law either because the legislature has occupied the relevant field of regulation" — i.e., field preemption—"or because the local law conflicts with state law" — i.e., conflict preemption.²³

Field preemption applies where the "legislature has assumed fully regulatory responsibility" in a field or area of the law.²⁴ The legislature may articulate its intent to occupy a field expressly or by implication.²⁵ Intent to occupy a field may be implied from "a declaration of state policy, the enactment of a 'comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular area,' or 'from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the [s]tate legislative scheme, including the need for [s]tate-wide uniformity in a given area.' "²⁶

Conflict preemption applies where "there is a head-on collision between" state and local law.²⁷ "For a local law to be invalid pursuant to the conflict preemption doctrine, the State must specifically permit the conduct the local law prohibits or provide 'some other indication that deviation from state law is prohibited.' "²⁸

B. The CVA and ASA Occupy the Field of Revival of Civil Claims Arising from Violations of State Sexual Offense Penal Statutes

The CVA and ASA constitute a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme. In 2019, the New York State legislature enacted the CVA, which created a revival window during which adult survivors of child sexual offenses were permitted to file otherwise time-barred civil claims.²⁹ While the provision originally created a one-year revival window,³⁰ in 2020 the legislature extended the window by an additional year.³¹ In 2022, the legislature passed the ASA, which created a one-year revival window for adult victims of sexual offenses to bring otherwise time-barred civil claims.³² The CVA and ASA apply to "every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law" committed against a child victim (CVA)³³ or an adult victim (ASA) respectively.³⁴ Each explicitly applies "[n]otwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary."³⁵ These provisions thus are comprehensive. Collectively, they apply to all civil claims by child and adult victims for personal injuries arising from conduct constituting sexual offenses defined by Article 130 of New York Penal Law. And they are detailed. They provide exact time frames during which claims may be brought. The CVA and ASA therefore occupy the field of revival of civil claims arising from violations of state sexual offense penal statutes, preempting local laws like the VGMVPL Revival Amendment to the extent that they purport to revive the same category of claims.

The sequence of enactments confirms the legislature's intent to occupy the field. The VGMVPL Revival Amendment was enacted in January 2022,³⁶ over four months before the passage of the ASA.³⁷ The state easily could have carved the VGMVPL out of the ambit of the ASA. Instead, the ASA applies broadly to "every civil claim or cause of action" brought by adult victims of sexual offenses per Article 130 of New York Penal Law,³⁸ thus including those brought under the VGMVPL,³⁹ The ASA applies "[n]otwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary."⁴⁰ The legislature could have stated that the ASA applies notwithstanding any more restrictive limitations period. But despite its presumed awareness of the VGMVPL Revival Amendment, the legislature opted not to do so.⁴¹

C. The ASA and 2022 VGMVPL Revival Amendment Conflict

The revival windows created by the ASA and the VGMVPL Revival Amendment conflict. The ASA revival window opened on November 24, 2022. The VGMVPL Revival Amendment allowed for the commencement of claims "not earlier than six months after . . . September 1, 2022," i.e., March 1, 2023. The ASA thus is unambiguously inconsistent with the start date of the VGMVPL revival window because the ASA specifically "permit[s] the conduct the local law" does not⁴² — bringing VGMVPL claims between November 24, 2022, and March 1, 2023.

The ASA is inconsistent also with respect to the end date of the VGMVPL Revival Amendment window. Per plaintiff's theory, the window to bring her claims would not close until March 1, 2025 — over 27 months after it opened. That would create a revival period longer than either the ASA or VGMVPL revival windows standing alone. This would conflict with the ASA's express provision that "[n]otwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary" eligible plaintiffs may file claims "not later than [November 24, 2023]."⁴³ "When the legislature has intended to revive time-barred claims, it has typically said so unambiguously, providing a limited window when stale claims may be pursued."⁴⁴ Plaintiff's interpretation — in which state law opens the revival window and local law would close it — would conflict with the legislature's creation of such a limited window.

D. Doe v. Black

Plainti...