Friedman v. Bartell
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-07630
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Friedman v. Bartell, Judge Halpern dismissed the time-barred child-abuse claims with prejudice after granting defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Robert Friedman’s claims against Dr. Abraham Bartell, Harvey Bachman, and United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice; the court also denied Friedman’s request for a default judgment against Bachman and closed the case.
What happened
In Friedman v. Bartell, Robert Friedman, representing himself, sued Dr. Abraham Bartell, Harvey Bachman, and United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc. He alleged that Bartell abused and assaulted him at a camp in 1982, when Friedman was 13, and that Bachman and the organization were responsible.
The court treated Friedman’s claims as state-law assault, battery, and related negligence claims. It ruled that the claims were filed too late. The New York Child Victims Act could have revived claims that were already time-barred, but Friedman filed after the Act’s August 14, 2021 deadline. The Act’s separate age-55 extension did not apply because his claims were already time-barred when the Act took effect.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Friedman’s claims with prejudice. The court also dismissed the claims against Bachman, who had not appeared, denied Friedman’s request for a default judgment against Bachman, declined to allow another amendment, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Friedman v. Bartell · No. 7:22-cv-07630
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
Robert Friedman, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued Dr. Abraham Bartell, Harvey Bachman, and United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York, Inc. Friedman alleged that he was sexually abused and physically assaulted while attending Camp Hatikvah during the summer of 1982, when he was 13 years old. He alleged that Bartell was his counselor, that Bachman was the camp director, and that Bachman defended Bartell after Friedman complained. Friedman also alleged that the conduct caused or worsened various physical and psychological conditions.
Friedman invoked the New York Child Victims Act and asserted diversity jurisdiction. Because the Child Victims Act does not itself create a cause of action, the court construed his amended complaint as asserting state-law claims, including assault and battery and related negligence claims. Each defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Statute of Limitations
The court held that the claims were apparent from the complaint to be untimely. Under New York law, intentional-tort claims generally have a one-year limitations period, and negligence-based personal-injury claims generally have a three-year period. Those periods were paused while Friedman was a minor. Based on the dates stated in the complaint, the intentional-tort period expired in August 1987 and the negligence period expired in August 1989.
The court considered two Child Victims Act provisions. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 214-g temporarily revived certain child-sexual-abuse claims that were already barred when the Act took effect on February 14, 2019. The deadline, as amended, was August 14, 2021. Because Friedman filed this lawsuit in September 2022, the court ruled that he missed that revival deadline.
The court also ruled that Civil Practice Law and Rules § 208(b), which allows certain child-sexual-abuse claims to be filed until the plaintiff reaches age 55, did not apply. That provision extends the time for claims that were not already time-barred on February 14, 2019; it does not revive claims that were already barred on that date. The court therefore did not decide whether the alleged conduct would qualify as a sexual offense under the statute or whether the organization owed Friedman a legal duty. The court also found no basis for equitable tolling, an exceptional extension of a filing deadline.
Other Rulings and Disposition
Bachman had not appeared, and the record did not show that he had received the summons and complaints. The court nevertheless dismissed the claims against him because the statute-of-limitations ruling applied equally to him. To the extent Friedman sought a default judgment against Bachman, the court denied that request because the claims were time-barred and it was uncertain whether Bachman had received notice of the lawsuit.
The court declined to grant leave to amend because Friedman had already amended once, had not requested another amendment, and had not identified additional facts that could cure the time-bar problem. Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed Friedman’s claims with prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.