As the legislative session was coming to a close, both the New York State Senate and Assembly passed a prison reform omnibus bill on June 12, 2025, (A8871/S8415) called the Fair Access to Justice Act (“Access Act”). The Access Act was one of two pending bills, the other being A8635/S8320 which is descriptively titled as “An act to amend the court of claims act, in relation to the contents of claims” (“Content Act”). The Content Act passed the Senate but not the Assembly before legislators left Albany, leaving intact the traditional standards for child sexual assault cases under the Court of Claims Act.
These bills responded to the Court of Appeals’ unanimous Chi Bartram Wright v. State of New York, 2025 N.Y. LEXIS 294, 2025 NY Slip Op 01564 (March 18, 2025) opinion. Court of Claims Act § 11(b), at the heart of the Chi Bartram Wright opinion, requires that a claim “shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of the same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and . . . the total sum claimed” (Court of Claims Act § 11[b]). As applied, the Court of Appeals has held § 11(b):
“places five specific substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity” (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]). It requires a claim to “specify (1) ‘the nature of the claim’; (2) ‘the time when’ it arose; (3) the ‘place where’ it arose; (4) ‘the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained’; and (5) ‘the total sum claimed’ ” (id. [brackets omitted]).
Because the Court of Claims Act waives New York’s sovereign immunity as to money damages and in derogation of the common law, it must be “strictly construed” and meet “the literal requirements” of the Act’s conditions. A complaint failing to meet these standards lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed.[1]
Chi Bartram Wright addressed a familiar pattern of generalized pleading for historic sexual abuse cases: Mr. Wright pled that between 1986 and 1990 that he “was raped and sexually abused as a child by numerous men in multiple incidents”, that “[t]he rape and sexual abuse were perpetrated . . . by both employees of the State as well as members of the general public”, that the alleged perpetrators were “known among the community and the children as [ ] sexual predator[s]”, and these perpetrators had “reputation[s] as sexual predators to young children.” Despite recognizing “the difficulties attendant to recollecting the details of any abuse that might have occurred decades ago”, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Wright’s pleading was insufficiently precise to enable investigation and accordingly must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As applied to the pending legislation, the Content Act (8635/S8320) purports to relax the Court of Claims Act pleading standards for sexual assault cases filed under the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA). While the language of the bill itself is broader than the CVA and ASA claims, it is a straightforward relaxation of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) pleading requirements for certain sexual assault claims that applies to any such action including those currently on appeal. Its fiscal implications are “[t]o be determined.” The Content Act passed the Senate but was not taken up by the Assembly before the end of the legislative session.
The much broader bill passed by both legislative bodies, the Access Act (A8871/S8415) purports to make the following changes:
Part J adds § 208-a to the Civil Practice Law and Rules, to toll the statute of limitations for claims accrued while under the jurisdiction and in the care and custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. It also amends § 11 of the Court of Claims Act, to ease the pleading requirement for individuals bringing actions which claims accrued while under the jurisdiction and in the care and custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
The Access Act is noteworthy in that it applies not only to sexual assaults, but to any action “to recover damages for physical, psychological, or other injury or condition suffered” while in custody. Both legislative houses passed the bill last week.
More precisely, the Access Act revisions include (1) amending General Municipal Law § 50-e subdivision 8 that would limit application to sexual assault actions, (2) amending General Municipal Law § 50-i to remove limiting that section to sexual assault actions, waive notice of claim requirements, and replace the one year and ninety days (personal injury) or two year (wrongful death) statutes of limitation with tolling the statute of limitations for three years after release from custody, (3) amending Court of Claims Act § 10 to similarly waive notice requirements as to the State, and (4) exempting Court of Claims Act § 11 pleadings requirements addressed by Chi Bartram Wright for all prisoner claims. The Access Act further makes it more difficult, if not impossible, for wrongfully sued defendants to prosecute defamation claims.
As with the Content Act (A8635/S8320), the Access Act (A8871/S8415) lacks any “Fiscal Implications” data and again states “[t]o be determined.” The absent data places New York at substantial financial risk. In but one example, 1,553 cases were filed under during the ASA lookback window alleging sexual abuse in New York State’s correctional facilities and 686 cases filed against New York City for alleged sexual abuse at Rikers Island. While the Access Act laudably attempts to compensate past wrongs at the hands of the state, the cost of existent cases, and those that will be encouraged by the Access Act itself, may be prohibitive.
The State of Maryland recently faced a similar situation when its Supreme Court held its CVA lookback window constitutional.[2] Facing fiscal crisis with around 4,000 claims against the state, Maryland enacted emergency legislation to amended its CVA through House Bill 1378 to cap damages against itself, local governments or local school boards to $400,000. Against a private individual or entity, damages were capped at $700,000. Maryland’s legislation also limited claimants to only one payment rather than collecting for each incident of abuse and capped attorneys’ fees at 25% of a judgment or 20% of a settlement.
In contrast, neither the Content nor Access Acts provide for a damages cap, prohibit seeking per-incident settlements or include limitations on attorneys’ fees. The Access Act is further a comprehensive restructuring of civil litigation in the correctional law setting and applies to any injury of any nature rather than just to sexual assault cases. In short, relaxing the Chi Bartram Wright strict application of § 11(b) expands access without compensating caps to contain costs.
In recent years, Governor Hochul has vetoed other legislation, sometimes repeatedly as with the Grieving Family Act, seeking to expand plaintiffs’ rights without the legislature presenting the anticipated costs. Warning that the legislature’s approach “would dramatically expand beneficiaries, categories of damages, and the statute of limitations”, the Governor has cautioned that the question of fiscal impact “would benefit from careful analysis before, not after, passing sweeping legislation.” Ultimately, legislative desire for sexual assault and correctional reparations must be balanced against fiscal reality to Governor Hochul’s satisfaction or risk her veto pen.
[1] See Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 (1992).
[2] Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. John Doe, et al., 489 Md. 514 (Feb. 3, 2025).
