Prohibits the admissibility of evidence of a victim's sexual conduct, sexual predisposition, or manner of dress in civil actions or proceedings; provides limited exceptions.
Summary
S02695 would add a new section to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules governing the use of evidence about a victim’s or alleged victim’s sexual conduct, sexual predisposition, and manner of dress in civil actions and proceedings. As a general rule, that evidence would not be discoverable, admissible, or mentioned before a jury. A party seeking to use it would have to apply to the court, which must hold an in camera hearing and apply a strong presumption against disclosure or admission.
The bill creates narrow exceptions. Evidence of prior sexual conduct could be considered only if it is material to showing that semen, pregnancy, or disease came from someone other than the defendant or alleged perpetrator. Evidence about dress at the time of the alleged sexual offense or misconduct could be admitted only if the court finds it relevant and in the interests of justice after an offer of proof. Reputation evidence would be allowed only if the victim has placed reputation in controversy. The bill also requires related motions and hearing records to be sealed unless the court orders otherwise, and it would take effect immediately.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would create a new CPLR section 4552 and impose a civil-law analogue to rape-shield protections by limiting discovery and admissibility of highly personal evidence in civil sexual-misconduct-related cases. It would affect litigants, attorneys, and courts by shifting the default toward exclusion and requiring judicial screening before such evidence can be used. The measure would also protect privacy by sealing motion papers and hearing records, while preserving limited evidentiary exceptions for specific relevance issues.
Sentiment
The bill’s text and caption indicate a protective, victim-centered approach aimed at reducing humiliation, embarrassment, and privacy invasions in civil proceedings. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to show broader support or opposition. Based on the structure of the bill, the general policy sentiment appears favorable to limiting invasive evidence while allowing narrow judicially supervised exceptions.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between victim privacy and a defendant’s ability to obtain and present potentially relevant evidence. Opponents could argue that the presumption against admissibility and the sealing provisions may restrict legitimate defenses or discovery, while supporters would emphasize preventing prejudice, shame, and unnecessary intrusion into a victim’s private life. The bill leaves discretion to judges through in camera review and an interests-of-justice standard, which is the mechanism intended to mediate that tension.
Same As
Prohibits the admissibility of evidence of a victim's sexual conduct, sexual predisposition, or manner of dress in civil actions or proceedings; provides limited exceptions.