In a recent case, Louis v. Victor Niederhoffer, 2023 WL 8777015 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2023), the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims asserted under the Gender-Motivated Violence Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code s. 10-1101 et seq.
Her complaint describes conduct – including sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape – that plaintiff alleges occurred during her employment at Mr. Niederhoffer’s investment firm between 1974 and 1979.
In granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court explained:
Ms. Louis alleges that, from 1974 through 1979, Mr. Niederhoffer engaged in alarming conduct that violated the GMV Law. (Compl. at 1.) However, the GMV Law was not passed until 2000.1 Breest v. Haggis, 180 A.D.3d 83, 85 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2019). As the New York Court of Appeals has made clear, “[r]etroactive operation is not favored by courts and statutes will not be given such construction unless the language expressly or by necessary implication requires it.” Gottwald v. Sebert, 40 N.Y.3d 240, 258 (N.Y. 2023) (citation omitted). This “deeply rooted presumption against retroactivity” is “based on elementary considerations of fairness.” Regina Metro. Co., LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 35 N.Y.3d 332, 370 (N.Y. 2020) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). Applying this “fundamental canon of statutory construction,” the only court to have considered the retroactive application of the GMV Law in this context2 concluded that the law, “which creates a new substantive cause of action … and does not provide for retroactive or immediate effectiveness, is not the type of statute that would be given retroactive effect.” Adams v. Jenkins, Index No. 115745/03, 2005 WL 6584554, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 22, 2005) (citations omitted). The fact that the GMV Law was amended in 2022—to reopen the statute of limitations for GMV Law claims for a two-year period running from six months after September 1, 2022, until two years and six months from that same date (N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE section 10-1105(a))—does not alter this conclusion. In Adams, the Court declined to give the GMV Law retroactive effect even though plaintiff’s claims fell within the law’s seven-year statute of limitations. 2005 WL 6584554, at *1.
All of Ms. Louis’s troubling allegations against Mr. Niederhoffer are based on events that allegedly occurred between 1974 and 1979, before the GMV Law was passed. Because the Court cannot apply the GMV Law retroactively, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the same reason, Ms. Louis is also denied leave to amend the Complaint. See Tocker v. Philip Morris Cos., 470 F.3d 481, 491 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[L]eave to amend a complaint may be denied when amendment would be futile.”).
Accordingly, the court granted the motion, and directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.