VanHooser v. Fine
Docket 148 CA 24-01791
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
- Reversed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02519
- Docket
- 148 CA 24-01791
Appeal from an order granting defendants' pre-answer motions to dismiss the amended complaint as untimely in a personal injury action under the Adult Survivors Act
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department reversed the trial court's dismissal of a personal injury complaint brought under New York's Adult Survivors Act (CPLR 214-j). The plaintiff alleged sexual abuse by a Syracuse University employee while he worked at a university-affiliated fraternity house. The court held the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded lack of consent and therefore alleged conduct that would constitute a Penal Law sex offense, so the claims were timely revived under the ASA. The case is remitted to Supreme Court for consideration of other dismissal grounds the lower court did not decide.
Issues Decided
- Whether the amended complaint sufficiently alleged conduct constituting a sexual offense under Penal Law article 130 to revive time-barred claims under the Adult Survivors Act (CPLR 214-j)
- Whether allegations of lack of consent were pleaded with sufficient factual detail to survive a CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) motion to dismiss
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that to invoke the ASA a plaintiff must plead facts showing conduct that would constitute a Penal Law sexual offense, including lack of consent. Here the amended complaint pleaded factual allegations adequate to allege lack of consent under Penal Law §130.05, so the complaint could be revived for statute-of-limitations purposes. The court emphasized that on a motion to dismiss the court does not weigh whether the plaintiff will ultimately prove those allegations, only whether they are sufficiently pleaded. Because the lower court did not reach other dismissal arguments, the matter was remitted for further consideration.
Authorities Cited
- Adult Survivors Act / CPLR 214-jCPLR 214-j
- Penal Law §130.05 (definition of lack of consent)Penal Law §130.05
- Standards for motion to dismiss — EBC I, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co.5 NY3d 11 (2005)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Floyd Van Hooser
- Defendant
- Bernard Arthur Fine
- Defendant
- Syracuse University
- Defendant
- Etasam, Inc.
- Defendant
- Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity, Inc.
- Defendant
- Sigma Alpha Mu/Eta Chapter
- Judge
- Joseph E. Lamendola
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Order entered (trial court)
- 2024-09-27
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceedings in Supreme Court
The matter is remitted to Supreme Court to address the alternative grounds for dismissal defendants raised but the lower court did not decide.
- 2
Prepare for discovery and merits litigation
Plaintiff should ready factual support for the alleged lack of consent and other elements, while defendants should prepare factual and legal defenses to the revived claims.
- 3
Consider appellate planning
Parties should consult counsel about preserving issues for potential further appeal once the trial court rules on the remaining defenses or after final judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and reinstated the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff adequately alleged lack of consent to invoke the Adult Survivors Act.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiff (Van Hooser) benefits because his time-barred claims were revived; the defendants must now face further proceedings on the merits and other dismissal arguments.
- What happens next in the case?
- The case goes back to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for consideration of other defenses the defendants raised and for further proceedings.
- Can this ruling be appealed again?
- Yes; after the trial court issues further rulings or a final judgment, the parties may pursue further appeals consistent with appellate procedure.
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
VanHooser v Fine - 2026 NY Slip Op 02519 VanHooser v Fine 2026 NY Slip Op 02519 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department FLOYD VAN HOOSER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v BERNARD ARTHUR FINE, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, ETASAM, INC., SIGMA ALPHA MU FRATERNITY, INC., AND SIGMA ALPHA MU/ETA CHAPTER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 148 CA 24-01791 Present: Whalen, P.J., Lindley, Curran, And Smith, JJ. THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (ELIZABETH A. CATE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SAUL EWING LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL A. JACOBSON, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ETASAM, INC., SIGMA ALPHA MU FRATERNITY, INC., AND SIGMA ALPHA MU/ETA CHAPTER. HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, SYRACUSE (MARY D'AGOSTINO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL M. SLEASMAN, ALBANY (DANIEL M. SLEASMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT BERNARD ARTHUR FINE. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Joseph E. Lamendola, J.), entered September 27, 2024. The order granted the motions of defendants to dismiss the amended complaint. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the amended complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action pursuant to the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) ( see CPLR 214-j), alleging that he was sexually abused by an employee of defendant Syracuse University while plaintiff was employed at a fraternity house associated with the university. Defendants filed pre-answer motions to dismiss the amended complaint against them. Supreme Court granted the motions insofar as they sought dismissal of the amended complaint as untimely, and plaintiff appeals. We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting the motions insofar as they sought dismissal of the amended complaint as untimely based on plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege conduct constituting a sexual offense as defined in Penal Law article 130, as necessary to revive the claims under the ASA ( see generally CPLR 3211 [a] [5], [7]). Although plaintiff was required to plead factual allegations related to his lack of consent in order to allege "conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law" (CPLR 214-j) and thereby "revive" the claims in the amended complaint for statute of limitations purposes, we conclude that the factual allegations in the amended complaint sufficiently assert plaintiff's lack of consent within the meaning of Penal Law § 130.05 ( see Shapiro v Syracuse Univ. , 208 AD3d 958, 959 [4th Dept 2022]; Druger v Syracuse Univ. , 207 AD3d 1153, 1153 [4th Dept 2022]). "Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss" ( EBC I , Inc. v Goldman , Sachs & Co. , 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005]; see Druger , 207 AD3d at 1154). Inasmuch as the court did not address the alternative grounds for dismissal raised in the motions, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to consider those contentions in the first instance ( see Lundy Dev. & Prop. Mgt. , LLC v Cor Real Prop. Co. , LLC , 181 AD3d 1180, 1181 [4th Dept 2020]). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn