Leon Black Sex Assault Case Tees Up NYC Enforcement Question

Two high-profile sexual assault cases at the Second Circuit Wednesday raise a novel issue that could stymie New York City’s ability to enforce civil rights laws for survivors of sexual assault and gender-based violence, attorneys say.

The issue up for debate has divided judges at the Southern District of New York: Do two state laws that created a revival window for sexual assault claims preempt the revival window in the city’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, a broad civil rights statute for survivors of gender-based violence?

Apollo Global Management Inc. co-founder Leon Black and luxury real estate brokers Tal, Oren, and Alon Alexander argue they do.

Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan in January ruled state law does preempt the city’s revival window when it comes to certain sexual assault claims, and he dismissed an assault claim brought against the Alexander brothers. But last year, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke concluded sexual assault claims against Black aren’t preempted and refused to dismiss the case against the former hedge fund manager.

A ruling in favor of preemption would have “broad, far-reaching implications” for New York City’s ability to enact civil rights legislation that might be broader or more protective than state laws, said Zoe Salzman, a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.

“I think that argument would come back up over and over every time the city tries to pass a revival window,” said Carolin Guentert, co-managing partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight LLP’s New York office.

Preempting the Field

In January 2022, the New York City Council amended its law to add a revival window—from March 2023 to March 2025—allowing survivors to bring claims that accrued between 2000 and 2015 that would have otherwise been time-barred, the city’s corporation counsel explained in an amicus brief filed in both cases.

But Kaplan ruled the revival window is preempted by the state’s 2019 Child Victims Act—which created a window for adult survivors of child sexual offenses to file otherwise time-barred civil claims—and the 2022 Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year window for adult victims of sexual offenses to bring claims.

The judge said the state laws created a comprehensive regulatory scheme that preempt the entire field. There’s also a conflict between the revival window under the Adult Survivors Act and the city law, he added.

However, the state laws created two small revival window statutes that are “floors for statutes of limitations, but not ceilings,” said Iliana Konidaris, managing legal counsel of the Fierberg National Law Group.

Kaplan made clear that preemption only applies to sexual offenses defined under the state’s criminal law, and not to claims for other gender-based acts of violence that can be brought under the city law.

But missing from Kaplan’s and Clarke’s opinions is the distinction between a claim that can be brought under the city law and one eligible under the state laws, said Julie Goldscheid, law professor at the CUNY School of Law.

City civil rights laws “provide redress for gender-motivated civil rights-based harms and bias crimes based on race, gender identity, and religion,” Goldscheid said. “Those laws sought to recognize a different type of harm.”

Home Rule Powers

If preemption is upheld, it would have wide ranging impact on New York State constitution’s home rule law that give local governments authority to enact laws affecting their citizens, separate from state laws.

New York City has long had civil rights laws that are similar to but broader than the state’s, Konidaris said, and it has “police power” to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.

“What happens to the home rule if these small revival windows have chipped away at what the city wanted to do with its civil rights remedy?” she asked.

If the revival window is struck, it would raise questions about whether the city has power to create longer statutes of limitations or legislate in this space at all, Salzman said.

The city’s amicus brief asks the court to certify the question to the state Court of Appeals, which has never addressed the issue of preemption with these particular laws. “Nor can this Court predict with confidence how the New York Court of Appeals would decide the question,” the city says.

Wigdor LLP represents the women accusing the Alexander brothers and Black. Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP and Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner & Linder represent the Alexander brothers. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Perry Law, and Susan Estrich of Santa Monica, Calif., represent Black.

The cases are Parker v. Alexander, 2d Cir., No. 25-487, oral argument scheduled 12/17/25 and Doe v. Black, 2d Cir., No. 25-564, oral argument scheduled 12/17/25.