Murray v. Planned Parenthood Fedn. of Am.
Docket Index No. 952388/23|Appeal No. 6484|Case No. 2025-04744|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02607
- Docket numbers
- Index No952388/23Appeal No6484Case No2025-04744
Appeal from an order dismissing the complaint in a civil action alleging misconduct during a 1996 medical procedure
Summary
The First Department unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing Yolanda Murray's complaint against Planned Parenthood as time-barred and for failure to state a viable claim. The court held Murray's claims arising from alleged 1996 misconduct did not fall within the Adult Survivors Act because the complaint did not allege criminal conduct enumerated by that statute, and the Child Victims Act revival window had already closed. The court also found that, even on the merits, Murray failed to plead facts showing Planned Parenthood's knowledge of the provider's dangerous propensities, control over the local affiliate, or any valid alter-ego theory, and there was no evidence of judicial bias.
Issues Decided
- Whether the plaintiff's claims alleging an unauthorized abortion and inappropriate comments fall within the Adult Survivors Act's revival of time-barred sexual-misconduct claims
- Whether the Child Victims Act revival window could revive the plaintiff's claims if she was a minor at the time
- Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded employer liability theories (negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision or control over a local affiliate)
- Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded an alter-ego theory to hold the national organization liable
Court's Reasoning
The court concluded the alleged performance of an unauthorized abortion and accompanying comments did not constitute the type of criminal conduct enumerated by the Adult Survivors Act, so the ASA did not revive the time-barred claim. The complaint was filed after the statutory revival window under the Child Victims Act had closed, so that statute could not save the claim even assuming the plaintiff was a minor. On the merits, the complaint lacked factual allegations that Planned Parenthood knew of any dangerous propensities of the treating doctor or that it controlled the local affiliate's employment or medical decisions, and the alter-ego theory was raised too late and unsupported by facts.
Authorities Cited
- Adult Survivors Act (ASA)CPLR 214-j
- Child Victims ActCPLR 214-g
- Doe v Wilhelmina Models, Inc.229 AD3d 128 (1st Dept 2024)
- Guzman v City of NY190 AD3d 454 (1st Dept 2021)
Parties
- Appellant
- Yolanda Murray
- Respondent
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America
- Judge
- Lyle E. Frank
- Attorney
- Dean L. Pillarella
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-28
- Order entered (Supreme Court)
- 2025-06-25
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider appeal to the Court of Appeals
If timely and strategic, the plaintiff may consult counsel about seeking permission to appeal to New York's highest court, focusing on statutory interpretation or procedural issues.
- 2
Assess possible rehearing or leave applications
Consult an attorney to evaluate whether a motion for reargument or leave to appeal could be justified based on legal error or overlooked facts; such filings have strict time limits.
- 3
Review dismissal for factual or procedural deficiencies
If pursuing further proceedings, identify any missing factual allegations that could be supported by evidence and whether any alternative legal theories remain viable.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit, finding it time-barred and, alternatively, insufficiently pleaded to hold Planned Parenthood liable.
- Why didn't the Adult Survivors Act help the plaintiff?
- The court found the complaint did not allege conduct that violated the criminal statutes listed in the Adult Survivors Act, so that statute could not revive the time-barred claim.
- Could the Child Victims Act revive the claim if the plaintiff was a minor then?
- No; the court said the action was commenced after the revival window under the Child Victims Act had already closed.
- What happens next for the plaintiff?
- The dismissal was affirmed, so the plaintiff has no viable claim in this court unless she pursues further appeal or other extraordinary relief.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Murray v Planned Parenthood Fedn. of Am. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02607 Murray v Planned Parenthood Fedn. of Am. 2026 NY Slip Op 02607 April 28, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Yolanda Murray, Appellant, v Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Respondent. Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026 Index No. 952388/23|Appeal No. 6484|Case No. 2025-04744| Before: Webber, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. Yolanda Murray, appellant pro se. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Dean L. Pillarella of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered on or about June 25, 2025, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. This action, which involves misconduct alleged to have occurred in 1996, was properly dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff's claims are not subject to the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) (CPLR 214-j) because she failed to allege "conduct that would constitute a violation of at least one of the criminal statutes enumerated" therein ( see Doe v Wilhelmina Models, Inc. , 229 AD3d 128, 137 [1st Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The performance of an unauthorized abortion, as alleged here, is not the type of sexual misconduct the ASA and similar "revival" statutes were designed to reach, even allowing for the fact, as alleged, that the provider made inappropriate comments to plaintiff while performing the procedure. Even if plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incident, as alleged in the complaint, the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g) would not save plaintiff's claim, as the action was commenced two years after the revival window for such a claim closed. Even if the complaint was not time-barred, it failed to allege the elements of any cognizable cause of action ( see Guzman v City of NY , 190 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2021]). For example, plaintiff did not allege that defendant had knowledge of any dangerous propensities possessed by the doctor who treated plaintiff which could have given rise to a claim for negligent hiring, retention, training, or supervision ( see A.M. v Holy Resurrection Greek Orthodox Church of Brookville , 190 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2021]). Nor did she allege that defendant had any control over or involvement in employment and medical treatment decisions by its local affiliates, including the one that treated plaintiff. Indeed, the affirmation submitted in support of defendant's motion established that it did not ( see Jane Doe Three v KIPP Academy Charter Sch. , 235 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2025]). Plaintiff also did not allege any facts in support of her alter ego theory, which was first raised in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss ( see Cedar Capital Mgt. Group Inc. v Lillie , 236 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2025]). There is no support in the record for plaintiff's claims of judicial bias. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 28, 2026