Establishes a private right of action against mental health professionals who engaged in sexual orientation change efforts and revives such actions otherwise barred by the existing statute of limitations
A11306 would create a new private right of action in New York for people harmed by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, often referred to as conversion therapy, when those efforts are carried out by mental health professionals. The bill defines covered professionals broadly, defines prohibited conduct to include attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or related attractions, and excludes affirming counseling or gender transition-related counseling that does not seek to change orientation. It allows plaintiffs to seek economic damages, noneconomic damages, punitive damages in qualifying cases, and attorneys’ fees.
The bill also extends the time to sue. For claims involving minors, suit could be brought until age 55; for adults, within 20 years of the last treatment session. In addition, it revives otherwise time-barred claims and claims previously blocked for failure to file a notice of claim, allowing them to be filed during a limited window beginning six months after the bill’s effective date and ending three years later. The bill directs the courts to adopt rules for timely adjudication of these revived actions and provides that revived cases receive trial preference.
Its impact on state law would be significant. It would add a new civil rights remedy in the Civil Rights Law, create a new limitations rule in the Civil Practice Law and Rules, and require court administration rules under the Judiciary Law. It would also affect mental health professionals, employers, supervisors, and entities that hired, supervised, or retained such professionals if they knew or should have known about the conduct. The bill is designed to be interpreted broadly and expressly preserves other existing causes of action and remedies.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee transcript debate, so there is no direct evidence of floor or committee sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsor framing, the measure appears intended as a remedial and survivor-focused bill, with a strong protective posture toward people alleging harm from conversion therapy. Likely points of contention would include the revival of expired claims, the extended limitations periods, the breadth of liability for employers and supervisors, and the use of expert testimony and causation standards tailored to latent psychological injuries.
The bill would amend the Civil Rights Law to create section 52-e, establishing a civil cause of action for damages arising from sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts by mental health professionals and related responsible parties. It would amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules to add section 214-k, reviving expired claims and overriding otherwise applicable limitations periods and notice-of-claim requirements for these actions. It would also amend the Judiciary Law to require the chief administrator of the courts to promulgate rules for timely adjudication of revived claims, and it would add revived conversion-therapy cases to the category of actions eligible for trial preference under CPLR 3403.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented public debate or formal vote sentiment in the provided materials. The bill text and caption indicate a strongly remedial purpose aimed at providing civil remedies to survivors of conversion therapy, suggesting supportive intent from the sponsor and committee introducer. At the same time, the absence of recorded opposition or amendments means any controversy is inferred from the bill’s legal effects rather than from stated positions in the record.
The most likely points of contention are the revival of otherwise time-barred claims, the long lookback periods for filing suit, and the bill’s override of notice-of-claim requirements. Another possible area of dispute is the scope of liability, which extends beyond the individual mental health professional to employers, supervisors, and entities that knew or should have known about the conduct or were negligent in hiring, supervision, or retention. The bill’s causation framework, reliance on expert testimony about psychological harm, and broad remedial interpretation clause may also draw scrutiny from opponents concerned about litigation exposure and evidentiary standards.