In Parker v. Alexander,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the NYS Court of Appeals to resolve the inconsistent revival windows set forth in the NYC Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA), NYS Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA). Specifically, the Second Circuit certified the following question: Whether the two-year revival window established by the GMVA to permit victims of sexual and gender-based violence to pursue civil claims is preempted by the earlier revival periods set forth in the CVA and ASA.
The CVA, which applies throughout New York State, provided a revival window for otherwise time-barred actions related to the sexual abuse of minors. Following an amendment, the window was open from August 14, 2019, to August 14, 2021. The ASA, which also applies statewide, created its own revival window from November 24, 2022, to November 24, 2023, for actions related to adult victims of sexual violence. The GMVA, which applies only to acts that occurred within the City of New York, was amended in 2022 to permit victims of sexual and gender-based violence to revive time-barred claims if filed between March 2023 and March 2025.
In Parker, the plaintiff brought her action in state court under the GMVA. The defendants removed the case to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), a federal court, and filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred because the ASA and CVA preempted the GMVA. The defendants won in the SDNY, and the plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit.
Before the Second Circuit, the plaintiff argued that the text of the statutes and their legislative histories signaled that the revival windows do not clash but rather the GMVA’s revival window advances the goal of the state laws. Further, the plaintiff argued that while the CVA and ASA show a statewide effort to revive claims for sexual offenses, they are not broad enough in scope to require the conclusion that all local laws addressing similar issues are preempted.
The defendants argued the text of the CVA and ASA, which permitted claims “[n]otwithstanding any provision of law which imposes a period of limitation to the contrary,”2 are in direct conflict with the subsequently enacted GMVA revival window because it allows claims to be brought after the CVA and ASA revival windows already expired. The defendants also relied on the state doctrine of field preemption arguing that the CVA and ASA create a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme for the revival of sexual assault claims.
On April 16, 2026, the New York Court of Appeals accepted the issue presented by the Second Circuit and will consider the issue after briefing and argument.3 We will closely monitor the developments resulting from this action and will provide a further update upon the New York Court of Appeals’ ruling.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Samantha McDermott, associate, at smcdermott@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
1No. 25-487-cv, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8479 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2026)
2CPLR §§214-g, 214-j
32026 NY Slip Op 66368, (Apr. 16, 2026)