In Sassoon v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 2026 WL 1590016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. May 18, 2026), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under the New York Adult Survivors Act (ASA), arising from an alleged sexual assault by four employees of Dow Jones & Company during an executive meeting in defendant’s office.
From the decision:
Plaintiff pleads the following with respect to notice in her amended complaint:
In or about July 1992, prior to the assault, Plaintiff received a call from Clay Cocalis, who was then employed as a Dow Jones executive. During her call with Mr. Cocalis, Plaintiff learned that he was at a meeting in or about July 1992. whereupon he witnessed a group of employees passing a legal pad and writing messages to each other. The messages referred to Plaintiff in a demeaning and sexually aggressive manner. Specifically, the messages indicate: “But Denise has breasts” and “I could make her orgasm in 60 seconds.” The final message states “Destroy this document.”
…By virtue of the messages that Plaintiff received from Mr. Cocalis, it is apparent that prior to my sexual assault, at least some of Dow Jones’s executive employees and/or management were aware of a sexually hostile work environment, as well as demeaning and sexually aggressive actions directed towards [Plaintiff]…
By virtue of DOW JONES’S awareness of the aforementioned sexually aggressive and chauvinistic behavior and failure to take corrective action, such behavior was tolerated by DOW JONES. By virtue of DOW JONES awareness as to the aforementioned sexually aggressive and chauvinistic behavior at the workplace and its failure to take corrective action, it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would result to employees, such as the sexual assault suffered by Plaintiff. NYSCEF doc. no. 26 at ¶¶ 37-38, 40, 37, 48.
Here, Plaintiff sufficiently pleads that at least one executive was aware of Defendant’s employee’s sexually hostile behavior towards Plaintiff before the attack. At this stage, Plaintiff is not required to establish the specific facts which give rise to putting Defendant on notice, but rather satisfactorily allege facts to support her claims. See John Doe v Ward, NY Slip Op 33155(U) (Sup Ct, NY County 2023) (“[p]laintiff is not required to establish at this early stage the specific facts which give rise to putting defendant on notice”).
Accepting the facts alleged to be true, as required, Plaintiff’s facts fit within cognizable legal theory of negligence. The amended complaint contains more than bare legal conclusions and claims that various members of the workforce engaging in demeaning, sexually, and threatening messages about Plaintiff before the assault in question. Clearly, this behavior falls in line with the sexual misconduct at issue. Compare McBride v City of New York, 160 AD3d 414 (1st Dept 2018) (notice of alcohol abuse insufficient to reflect propensity for sexual misconduct); Osvaldo D. v Rector Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church of N.Y., 38 AD3d 480, 480 (1st Dept 2007) (notice of prior drug use not indicative of propensity for violence).
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed as duplicative of her negligence and negligent hiring and retention claims. This argument fails. The First Department has allowed both negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims based on the same facts to survive. See e.g. Brown v New York Design Ctr., Inc., 215 AD3d 1, 9 (1st Dept 2023). In order to prove negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s However, the mental injury must be “a direct, rather than a consequential, result of the breach”. and the claim must possess “some guarantee of genuineness.” Id. (interna! citations omitted). Here, the negligent infliction of emotional distress is not duplicative of the other claims, because Plaintiff pleads that the conduct giving rise to this claim – unlike the other two – was a direct result of Defendant’s employees alleged assault implicated her physical safety, giving rise to some assurance of authenticity. Compare Wolkstein v Morgenstern, 275 AD2d 635, 636-37 (1st Dept 2000).
Lastly. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. “[P]unitive damages can be imposed on an employer for the intentional wrongdoing of its employees only where management has authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant…” Loughry v Lincoln First Bank, N.A., 67 NY2d 369. 378 (1986). Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that her sexual abuse occurred prior to the start of an executive meeting in a Defendant’s office by assailants who were under the management, employ, direction and/or control of Defendant. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs punitive damages claim is denied as premature, as she has properly pled such claim.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s case will continue to the discovery phase of the litigation.