Bellino v. Tallarico
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:24-cv-00712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bellino v. Tallarico, Judge Kaplan granted Tallarico’s motion to dismiss Bellino’s claim under New York City’s gender-violence law.
Jeanne Bellino’s claim against Steven Victor Tallarico under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act was dismissed through the granted motion to dismiss; the order allowed a possible motion for leave to amend by March 13, 2024.
What happened
In Bellino v. Tallarico, Jeanne Bellino alleged that Steven Victor Tallarico sexually assaulted her in 1975, when she was 17. She sought damages only under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act.
Tallarico asked the court to dismiss the complaint because Bellino’s claim was untimely and did not satisfy the law’s requirements. Bellino did not file a response to the motion. The court also considered whether the law’s later revival provision could reopen the claim.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted Tallarico’s motion to dismiss. He ruled that the complaint did not allege conduct presenting a serious risk of physical injury, as required by the statute, and separately ruled that the statute’s limitations provision was preempted by New York’s Child Victims Act and Adult Survivors Act. The court allowed Bellino to seek permission to amend by March 13, 2024, if she included a proposed amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Bellino v. Tallarico · No. 1:24-cv-00712
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Jeanne Bellino alleged that Steven Victor Tallarico, also known as Steven Tyler, sexually assaulted her in 1975, when she was 17 years old. She sought damages exclusively under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (VGMVPA), a law enacted and first effective in 2000.
The defendant filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks the court to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. Bellino filed no response.
Statute of Limitations and Claim Elements
The VGMVPA creates a damages claim for a person injured by someone who commits, directs, enables, participates in, or conspires to commit a gender-motivated crime of violence. The statute generally requires the claim to be filed within seven years after the alleged crime. If the plaintiff was unable to sue during that period, it allows filing within nine years after that inability ends.
The court said Bellino’s claim was untimely under both periods. Bellino relied on a separate provision that revives certain otherwise time-barred claims and permits them to be filed during a specified period beginning six months after September 1, 2022, and ending two years and six months after that date.
The court identified two independent problems with the claim. First, it stated that a VGMVPA violation requires, among other things, conduct presenting a serious risk of physical injury. The court held that Bellino’s complaint did not allege such conduct and therefore failed to state a legally sufficient VGMVPA claim. Second, the court held that the VGMVPA’s limitations provision was preempted by New York’s Child Victims Act and Adult Survivors Act, substantially for the reasons given by Tallarico.
Disposition
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It permitted any motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, to be filed by March 13, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.