New York City Council members, survivors and attorneys urged the Committee on Women and Gender Equity on Oct. 1 to pass Intro 12-97, a bill to reopen a one-year look-back window allowing survivors of gender-motivated violence to sue institutions that enabled abuse. The measure was framed as a correction to a technical issue courts have used to dismiss cases brought by survivors of institutional abuse.

Council Member Farah Lewis, chair of the Committee on Women and Gender Equity, opened the oversight hearing and listed Intro 12-97 among the items for consideration. Many speakers said recent court rulings have already resulted in dismissals of cases filed by people who experienced abuse years earlier. Jerome Block, a lawyer with Levy Konigsberg, told the committee that roughly 460 men and women had cases dismissed by a Bronx trial court; he urged the council to vote on Intro 12-97 at the next stated meeting (noted in testimony as Oct. 29).

Survivors who testified described abuse in juvenile detention centers and health-care settings, and said the legislation would restore their ability to seek civil accountability against institutions. Rosian Mohammed said she was abused “not once but twice in two different juvenile detention facilities,” and called Intro 12-97 “about making sure no other child goes through what I did.” Several attorneys and advocates said the bill is narrowly written to address the court’s technical reading and does not create novel causes of action.

Speakers representing survivor and victim-advocacy organizations, including Safe Horizon, the New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault, and the Children’s Justice Campaign (End Abuse), urged the council to act quickly. Attorneys who represent large groups of survivors said the courts have handled previous revival windows without the system being overwhelmed, and that dismissal of cases sends the wrong message to survivors.

Officials from the Mayor’s Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence (NGBV) said the administration supports the goal of holding perpetrators and enabling institutions accountable, but raised concerns about “potential for substantial cost considerations” and asked to discuss implementation details with the council in a separate context. Committee members pressed for follow-up information from the administration about case counts and the administration’s litigation posture toward existing claims.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing. Council members and supporters repeatedly asked the administration and City Law Department to avoid dismissing pending cases while the council considers the legislation.

The hearing also included sustained public testimony from dozens of survivors, many of whom described delayed disclosure and urged the council to restore the look-back window so their claims can be heard in court.