New York Assembly Bill A00275

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Extends the statute of limitations to bring a claim arising out of an alleged sexual offense by a law enforcement officer if the alleged offense occurred while the officer was employed by a law enforcement agency.

Summary

This bill would create a new section of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to address civil claims arising from alleged sexual offenses committed by law enforcement officers while employed by a law enforcement agency. It exempts such claims from all state and local notice-of-claim requirements, meaning a plaintiff would not have to satisfy the usual pre-suit notice rules that often apply to claims against public entities or employees. The bill also extends and, in some cases, revives the time period for bringing civil actions for injuries caused by such conduct. For certain claims, suit could be filed within the later of 10 years after a criminal judgment against the officer arising from the same facts, or 10 years after the officer leaves law enforcement employment. For claims that would otherwise be time-barred and have not been finally litigated or settled, the bill revives them if filed within 10 years of the last alleged act or within 3 years of discovery of the injury or illness. The bill defines "sexual offense" by reference to Penal Law article 130 and incest statutes, and defines "law enforcement officer" and "law enforcement agency" broadly to include police officers, peace officers, and their employers.

Impact

The bill would amend New York civil procedure law by adding a targeted limitations and notice-of-claim rule for civil actions based on alleged sexual offenses by law enforcement officers. It would override otherwise applicable state and local notice requirements and extend the statute of limitations, including a revival window for certain expired claims. The practical effect would be to expand access to civil remedies for survivors and increase potential exposure for individual officers and the agencies that employed them, while leaving the underlying criminal definitions of sexual offense unchanged.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a survivor-focused accountability bill, with no recorded committee debate or vote history provided. The overall sentiment inferred from the proposal is supportive of expanding legal remedies for people alleging sexual abuse by police or peace officers, especially where ordinary filing deadlines or notice rules would otherwise block a case. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no documented opposition in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure suggests it is intended to address barriers faced by survivors in bringing claims.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s revival of otherwise time-barred claims and its elimination of notice-of-claim requirements, both of which can be seen as expanding liability for law enforcement officers and public employers. Supporters would likely emphasize access to justice for survivors, delayed disclosure of abuse, and the need for accountability when the alleged wrongdoer is a police or peace officer. Potential critics may argue that the bill creates special treatment for one category of defendants, increases litigation exposure for municipalities and agencies, and weakens procedural protections that normally apply to claims against government-related actors.