Recent CVA Trial Results: Big Wins For Plaintiffs And Defendants

Given the rarity of the Child Victims Act cases being tried, it is important to take note of the few that see their way to a jury verdict. Readers can compare two recent cases: T.F. v. Clarkstown Central School District, 032990/2021 (Sup. Ct., Rockland Co. 2021), in which the jury returned a defense verdict, and A.P. v. City of New York, 512233/2021 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co. 2020), purportedly the first CVA jury verdict in New York City, in which the jury returned an $18 million verdict for the plaintiff.

T.F. v. Clarkstown Central School District

In T.F. v. Clarkstown Central School District, the plaintiff alleged that he was sexually abused by his seventh-grade Spanish teacher during the 1984–1985 school year. According to the allegations, the abuse occurred approximately three times per week. The plaintiff claimed that the teacher regularly seated him in the back row of the classroom and, during examinations or independent assignments, would stand behind him, massage his back and shoulders, and engage in inappropriate sexual touching both over and underneath his clothing.

To establish liability, the plaintiff contended that the Clarkstown Central School District had actual or constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged propensity for sexual misconduct. In support of this claim, the plaintiff presented evidence concerning the frequency and nature of the alleged conduct, testimony regarding student rumors and nicknames referring to the teacher as “Feely Fitz” and “Feel Good Fitz,” and allegations that the teacher routinely permitted students to sit on his lap during classroom instruction.

The District denied liability and challenged both the occurrence of the alleged abuse and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting notice. The District argued that the allegations were not credible in light of the absence of corroborating testimony from former classmates. The District further maintained that it lacked notice of any alleged misconduct, noting that no witness testified that District personnel had observed students sitting on the teacher’s lap or otherwise witnessed inappropriate conduct. It also contended that the purported evidence of notice consisted primarily of rumors, speculation, and unsubstantiated hearsay.

Following nearly two weeks of testimony, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the District, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was sexually abused. The plaintiff was represented by Herman Law. The defendants were represented by Kenneth Ross and John Della Jacono of Della Jacono & Ross, together with Lewis Brisbois partners Corey Shulman and Karen L. Campbell.

A.P. v. City of New York

In A.P. v. City of New York, the plaintiff alleged that he was sexually abused by his music teacher between 1968 and 1971, when he was between eight and eleven years old. The plaintiff alleged that the teacher repeatedly placed him on his lap, engaged in inappropriate sexual touching, digitally penetrated him on at least two occasions in a darkened room, and covered his mouth to prevent him from crying out.

To establish notice, the plaintiff relied on documentary and testimonial evidence concerning complaints made against the teacher during the relevant period. This evidence included records from a 1970 special open meeting of the school board reflecting parental complaints regarding the teacher’s conduct. The plaintiff also introduced evidence that, although the school principal reassigned the teacher within the school, the teacher’s employment was not terminated. In addition, the plaintiff presented testimony from a parent who reported misconduct to school officials in 1971. The plaintiff further relied on contemporaneous newspaper articles reporting that parents protested the District’s decision not to terminate the teacher by boycotting the school and refusing to send their children to classes.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $18 million. The plaintiff was represented by Herman Law. The defendants were represented by the New York City Corporation Counsel.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.