logo
Most of the New York Child Victims Act lawsuits remain in limbo five years later

Most of the New York Child Victims Act lawsuits remain in limbo five years later

NBC News09-05-2025

Back in 2019, James Manfredonia and some of his former Little League teammates thought they would finally be able to confront the coach who they allege abused them decades ago when they sued him under New York's Child Victims Act.
Five years later, they have yet to get a trial date, and their lawsuit against Tony Sagona remains in limbo.
The Sagona case is no outlier. For two years, from 2019 to 2021, 10,783 lawsuits were filed under the Child Victims Act in New York on behalf of 14,588 men and women who say teachers, coaches, priests and other authority figures sexually abused them as children decades ago, according to figures provided by the state's Unified Court System.
Of those cases, 7,632 were assigned to judges, and 2,052 of those were either settled or disposed of. The rest are classified as "pending."
'When the lawsuits started being filed, there was a lot of attention and talk about how the victims would get justice,' said Manfredonia, 63. 'But no one seems to care. Here we are, all these years later, and we just have to wait and wait and wait and wait. How can these cases not be a priority, especially given the supposed effort to pass the law?'
The Child Victims Act, which the New York Legislature passed in January 2019, lifted the statute of limitations and allowed victims of childhood abuse to sue predators regardless of when the abuse took place.
While there does not appear to be a single reason the lawsuits are caught up in a legal logjam, there is plenty of finger-pointing about who is to blame.
Advocates say part of the reason for the bottleneck is that just a handful of judges are handling all those cases and that the state has not done enough to speed the cases along. Ongoing legal battles between the major institutions, like the Archdiocese of New York — accused of covering up systematic sex abuse — and their insurers over who is responsible for paying millions of dollars in settlements have also stalled the cases.
'It's a typical story,' said Heather Cucolo, a professor at the New York School of Law. 'The Legislature passes something to right a wrong. We'll open this window, they say. We're supporting the victims. But the system in place to expedite these cases is just not working, and no one seems to be stepping up to effectuate and implement necessary changes.'
David Catalfamo, who heads a victims' advocacy group called the Coalition for Just & Compassionate Compensation, said the state has done little to intervene in the legal battles. He said the state Department of Financial Services has released guidance saying it expects insurance companies to 'cooperate fully with the intent of the Child Victims Act.'
But in practice, Catalfamo said, Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Department of Financial Services have 'shamelessly sided with big insurance, abandoning the very survivors they once promised to protect.'
Hochul's office did not respond to emails and calls for comment.
Manfredonia's lawyer, Bradley Rice, said things are moving so slowly, in part, because of a lack of judges assigned to handle all the cases. He said that to expedite things, some of the lawsuits are being grouped together.
'This is something that you do in the first year or two after the suit is filed,' Rice said. 'The state just wasn't prepared to deal with all these lawsuits.'
One of the state senators who led the drive to pass the Child Victims Act, Brad Hoylman-Sigal, whose district includes much of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, introduced a bill that would boost the number of state Supreme Court judges. But it is a long way from becoming law.
'New York has a constitutional cap on the number of State Supreme Court justices,' Hoylman-Sigal's office said in a written response to questions. 'We have passed legislation to remove that cap, but doing so requires passing it again through both houses and then it being approved by popular vote by the people of New York.'
While Cucolo, the law professor, agreed that the scarcity of judges is a factor, she said there are other issues at play slowing down the process.
'There is the discovery process, which takes time. There are the confidentiality rules when you're dealing with cases like these,' she said.
Under the Child Victims Act, there is a process by which victims must meet a 'threshold of specificity about incidents,' Cucolo said, adding that the process can take some time.
Also delaying settlements are the ongoing battles between institutions being sued and their insurance companies to determine who is responsible for the payouts, Cucolo and victims' advocates say.
The Archdiocese of New York has been in a battle with its insurer, Chubb, over who should pay out claims. The archdiocese has been the target of more than a thousand Child Victims Act lawsuits accusing it of having turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by priests for decades.
In September, after he sued Chubb alleging it flouted New York's General Business Law, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, charged in a letter to his flock that their longtime insurance company was 'attempting to evade their legal and moral contractual obligation to settle covered claims which would bring peace and healing to victim-survivors.'
Dolan, who has opposed to the Child Victims Act in the past, argued that paying out the roughly 1,400 open claims would bankrupt the church.
In the meantime, the archdiocese set up its own Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program to help victims who opted not to sue. As of April, the archdiocese had settled more than 430 of those cases, spokesperson Joseph Zwilling said.
An archdiocesan lawyer said in a statement Friday: 'The Archdiocese and Associated Policyholders looked to their longtime insurer for help when abuse survivors brought CVA claims alleging they negligently hired, supervised, and retained certain individuals accused of committing such abuse. Chubb reneged on its promises and turned on its policyholders in their time of gravest need.'
Chubb, which insured the archdiocese from 1956 to 2003, said Friday in a statement in response to questions from NBC News that 'compensating victims who suffered rampant church sexual abuse for decades should be the top priority of the Archdiocese, especially since they are sitting on a vast amount of wealth.'
'Nothing is stopping the Archdiocese from paying its victims today,' the statement continued. 'We have tried for years to get information on individual claims, but the Archdiocese refuses to cooperate or provide any information. They continue to conceal what they knew and when, which is why, in an attempt to force the release of information about claims we sued them in June of 2023.'
In closing, Chubb added: 'You can't get insurance coverage for what the church has admitted — hiding and facilitating the criminal sexual abuse of children.'
But even cases against smaller organizations — like Manfredonia's case against his former coach Sagona, the Great Kills Babe Ruth League and others who the plaintiffs allege knew the coach was preying on boys but did nothing to stop him — are being held up.
Sagona, who is 74 and lives in Boca Raton, Florida, has not been charged with a crime. His lawyer, Steve Kirk, said Sagona 'continues to deny the allegations full-heartedly.'
'He never coached Little League and doesn't even know some of the people who are suing him,' Kirk said.
Calls to a number for the Great Kills Babe Ruth League were unanswered.
But there may be some good news: Rice has been told they will soon be getting a court date, but it is not clear when. However, he said, the process is taking way too long.
Manfredonia said that despite the delay, he has no regrets about having filed the lawsuit. Just being able to talk openly about something that he kept bottled up inside for decades is its own reward, he said.
'The biggest benefit to coming out and telling our story is that it has helped our families begin to understand why we are the way we are,' he said. 'They can't really know what it's like, know what we've been feeling and hiding all this time. But they can begin to understand our behavior and reactions, and that's a big benefit, a very big benefit.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

More than a dozen ICE officers are trapped in sweltering shipping container with the migrants they deported
More than a dozen ICE officers are trapped in sweltering shipping container with the migrants they deported

Daily Mail​

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

More than a dozen ICE officers are trapped in sweltering shipping container with the migrants they deported

More than a dozen ICE officers alongside a group of eight migrants that had been placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a US naval base in Djibouti in the stifling heat, in horrendous conditions. The men and their guards are dealing with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Neither the officers or migrants can leave container until the matter has been resolved by the courts, which could take weeks. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after US District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men, which include murderers and sexual abusers from Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. All eight were accused of being convicted criminals by the Trump administration and deported in late May after their respective origin countries all rejected them being returned. The men's lawyers have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. 'This Massachusetts District judge is putting the lives of our ICE law enforcement in danger by stranding them in Djibouti without proper resources, lack of medical care, and terrorists who hate Americans running rampant,' DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a post on X. 'Our @ICEgov officers were only supposed to transport for removal 8 convicted criminals with final deportation orders who were so monstrous and barbaric that no other country would take them. This is reprehensible and, quite frankly, pathological.' On Friday, Barnard spoke at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to speak with them on Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the US, and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100F, according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. The stench is so bad and the air so polluted that some officers now sleep with face masks on. Officers and detainees became sick within 72 hours of landing in Djibouti. So far, thirteen ICE officials have fallen ill and are suffering from respiratory infections, together with the extreme heat and cramped living conditions. The ICE officials are experiencing 'coughing, difficulty breathing, fever, and achy joints,' the court documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. Along with the deportees, the ICE agents are forced to stay in the makeshift detention center with just six beds between the entire group. The detainees are also facing uncomfortable conditions only being able to shower once every other day while being subjected to 'pat-downs and searches' every time they need to use the restroom, some 40 yards away from the container in where they're being held. 'The conference room in which the aliens are housed is not equipped nor suitable for detention of any length, let alone for the detention of high-risk individuals,' Harper wrote. 'Notably, the room has none of the security apparatus necessary for the detention of criminal aliens. If an altercation were to occur, there is no other location on site available to separate the aliens, which further compromises the officers' safety.'

Lawyers warned to stop using ChatGPT to argue lawsuits after AI programs 'made up fictitious cases'
Lawyers warned to stop using ChatGPT to argue lawsuits after AI programs 'made up fictitious cases'

Daily Mail​

time4 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

Lawyers warned to stop using ChatGPT to argue lawsuits after AI programs 'made up fictitious cases'

Lawyers in England and Wales have been warned they could face 'severe sanctions' including potential criminal prosecution if they present false material generated by AI in court. The ruling, by one of Britain's most senior judges, comes on the back of a string of cases in which which artificially intelligence software has produced fictitious legal cases and completely invented quotes. The first case saw AI fabricate 'inaccurate and fictitious' material in a lawsuit brought against two banks, The New York Times reported. Meanwhile, the second involved a lawyer for a man suing his local council who was unable to explain the origin of the nonexistent precedents in his legal argument. While large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI 's ChatGPT and Google 's Gemini are capable of producing long accurate-sounding texts, they are technically only focused on producing a 'statistically plausible' reply. The programs are also prone to what researchers call 'hallucinations' - outputs that are misleading or lack any factual basis. AI Agent and Assistance platform Vectera has monitored the accuracy of AI chatbots since 2023 and found that the top programs hallucinate between 0.7 per cent and 2.2 per cent of the time - with others dramatically higher. However, those figures become astronomically higher when the chatbots are prompted to produce longer texts from scratch, with market leader OpenAI recently acknowledging that its flagship ChatGPT system hallucinates between 51 per cent and 79 per cent of the time if asked open-ended questions. While large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini are capable of producing long accurate-sounding texts, they are technically only focused on producing a 'statistically plausible' reply - which can lead to them 'hallucinating' false information Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, and Justice Jeremy Johnson KC, authored the new ruling. In it they say: 'The referrals arise out of the actual or suspected use by lawyers of generative artificial intelligence tools to produce written legal arguments or witness statements which are not then checked, so that false information (typically a fake citation or quotation) is put before the court. 'The facts of these cases raise concerns about the competence and conduct of the individual lawyers who have been referred to this court. 'They raise broader areas of concern however as to the adequacy of the training, supervision and regulation of those who practice before the courts, and as to the practical steps taken by those with responsibilities in those areas to ensure that lawyers who conduct litigation understand and comply with their professional and ethical responsibilities and their duties to the court.' The pair argued that existing guidance around AI was 'insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence'. Judge Sharp wrote: 'There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused,' While acknowledging that AI remained a 'powerful technology' with legitimate use cases, she nevertheless reiterated that the technology brought 'risks as well as opportunities.' In the first case cited in the judgment, a British man sought millions in damages from two banks. The court discovered that 18 out of 45 citations included in the legal arguments featured past cases that simply did not exist. Even in instances in which the cases did exist, often the quotations were inaccurate or did not support the legal argument being presented. The second case, which dates to May 2023, involved a man who was turned down for emergency accommodation from the local authority and ultimately became homeless. His legal team cited five past cases, which the opposing lawyers discovered simply did not exist - tipped off by the fact by the US spellings and formulaic prose style. Rapid improvements in AI systems means its use is becoming a global issue in the field of law, as the judicial sector figures out how to incorporate artificial intelligence into what is frequently a very traditional, rules-bound work environment. Earlier this year a New York lawyer faced disciplinary proceedings after being caught using ChatGPT for research and citing a none-existent case in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Attorney Jae Lee was referred to the grievance panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2025 after she cited a fabricated case about a Queens doctor botching an abortion in an appeal to revive her client's lawsuit. The case did not exist and had been conjured up by OpenAI's ChatGPT and the case was dismissed. The court ordered Lee to submit a copy of the cited decision after it was not able to find the case. She responded that she was 'unable to furnish a copy of the decision.' Lee said she had included a case 'suggested' by ChatGPT but that there was 'no bad faith, willfulness, or prejudice towards the opposing party or the judicial system' in doing so. The conduct 'falls well below the basic obligations of counsel,' a three-judge panel for the Manhattan-based appeals court wrote. In June two New York lawyers were fined $5,000 after they relied on fake research created by ChatGPT for a submission in an injury claim against Avianca airline. Judge Kevin Castel said attorneys Steven Schwartz and Peter LoDuca acted in bad faith by using the AI bot's submissions - some of which contained 'gibberish' - even after judicial orders questioned their authenticity.

Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled
Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled

The Independent

time5 hours ago

  • The Independent

Supreme Court will hear Alabama appeal in bid to execute man found to be intellectually disabled

The Supreme Court will consider making it harder for convicted murderers to show their lives should be spared because they are intellectually disabled, according an order released early on Friday after an apparent technological glitch. The justices' action comes in an appeal from Alabama, which is seeking to execute Joseph Clifton Smith. He was sentenced to death for killing a man in 1997. Lower federal courts found Smith is intellectually disabled and thus can't be executed. When it's argued in the fall, the case could be the first in which the Supreme Court cuts back on its 23-year-old landmark ruling that barred the death penalty for people who are intellectually disabled. At issue is what happens in borderline cases, when scores on IQ tests are slightly above 70, which is widely accepted as a marker of intellectual disability. In 2014 and 2017, the court somewhat eased the burden of showing intellectual disability in those cases. It's the second time in about a year that an online error resulted in an early release from the high court. An opinion in an abortion case was accidently posted on its website a day early in June 2024. The court's landmark opinion overturning abortion as a constitutional right also went out early, though those circumstances were different because the case was leaked. This time, the court released a set of orders set for Monday after an 'apparent software malfunction' sent out early notifications.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store