Mayor Adams Vetoes Sexual Abuse Victims’ Justice Bill on Christmas Eve, Council Vows to Override
In a controversial move on Christmas Eve, outgoing New York City Mayor Eric Adams vetoed a bill that would have granted sexual abuse victims an 18-month window to sue their alleged perpetrators, even after the statute of limitations had expired. The “Gender Motivated Violence Act,” which had passed unanimously through the City Council last month, was designed to create a “look back” window for victims seeking justice, including those with claims against Jeffrey Epstein’s estate. In his veto statement, Mayor Adams claimed the bill would essentially provide a $300 million “debit card” to Levy Konigsberg, a law firm representing numerous alleged victims. This decision has sparked immediate backlash from council members, victim advocates, and attorneys who view it as a significant setback for survivors seeking accountability.
The incoming City Council Speaker Julie Menin quickly responded to the veto, pointing out that the mayor’s sudden concern about the city’s financial liability was never raised during previous testimony at the bill’s hearing. “We clearly heard directly from survivors of sexual and gender-motivated violence, including horrific accounts from survivors of Jeffrey Epstein,” Menin stated. “Their voices made clear that passing this bill is critical to ensuring survivors can pursue justice for the despicable acts committed against them.” With confidence in the council’s commitment to survivors, Menin vowed that the incoming majority-women council would vote to override the mayor’s veto in the new year. The council will have 30 days following their first official January meeting to potentially override the veto, which would require support from three-fourths of the 51-member body.
Queens Councilwoman Selvena Brooks-Powers, who authored the bill, expressed her disappointment in the mayor’s decision, stating, “While City Hall claimed it wanted to support victims, that is impossible to square with blocking legislation designed to do exactly that. Justice isn’t a talking point to survivors, it’s the difference between silence and accountability.” The legislation represents a technical fix to previous laws that would have allowed lawsuits against allegedly culpable institutions but were ultimately struck down by a judge. If passed, the bill would enable hundreds of suits from alleged victims, including those abused at Spofford (the former Bronx Juvenile Detention Center) or by convicted rapist Dr. Ricardo Cruciani, whose victims have accused Mt. Sinai Hospital systems of a cover-up. These cases represent just a fraction of the justice that could be pursued under the proposed legislation.
The mayor’s office has defended the veto by pointing to projections from the Office of Management and Budget that the bill could strain the city’s finances by up to a billion dollars, with approximately one-third of any monetary awards likely going to law firms as is standard practice in such litigation. “Domestic violence is a serious crime and perpetrators of this act of violence must be held accountable and brought to justice,” Adams stated, “but this bill would allow a single law firm that lobbied Speaker Adams and the City Council to pocket up to $300 million of taxpayer funds while reviving claims that have already been dismissed.” The mayor characterized the bill not as justice but as “a windfall for a fancy law firm to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of survivors as well as all New York taxpayers.” A council source indicated they would further assess the fiscal impact once the veto override occurs and the bill is implemented.
Attorney Jerome Block from Levy Konigsberg LLP condemned the mayor’s veto as “callous” and an attempt to “deprive survivors of their legal rights.” He expressed confidence that the veto would not stand, stating, “The survivors who fought for Intro 1297 [Gender Motivated Violence Act] will ultimately prevail. We are confident that this shocking Christmas Eve veto will be overridden by the City Council.” The timing of the veto—during the holidays and in Adams’ final days in office—has been viewed by many as particularly insensitive to victims seeking closure and accountability. Julia Agos, a spokeswoman for outgoing Speaker Adams (no relation to the mayor), criticized the timing, saying, “Mayor Adams has chosen to use his final days in office to attempt to deny survivors of sexual and gender-motivated violence the opportunity to hold their abusers accountable.”
The veto has drawn sharp criticism from attorneys representing sexual abuse victims. Jordan Merson, a lawyer representing approximately 40 Epstein victims, delivered a particularly pointed rebuke: “As one of his last acts in office, Mayor Adams vetoed legislation to help sexual abuse victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Think about that.” The unanimous passage of the bill in November came after victims, advocates, and their lawyers had previously criticized outgoing Speaker Adams for the bill’s slow progress. Now, with the incoming council poised to challenge the mayor’s veto, the focus shifts to January when the new legislative body will have its first opportunity to potentially override the veto and provide sexual abuse survivors with their long-sought window for justice. The developing situation underscores the tension between fiscal concerns and the moral imperative to provide pathways to justice for victims of sexual abuse.
