Two different systems
A criminal case is brought by the state to punish an offender, and requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. A civil case is brought by you, seeks compensation, and is decided on the
balance of probabilities, more likely than not.
They are not stages of the same process. A civil claim does not require a criminal case to
have happened, succeeded, or even been reported.
Why so many cases were never prosecuted
Prosecutors decline cases for reasons unrelated to whether the abuse occurred: the criminal
time limit had passed, the accused had died, evidence was insufficient for the criminal standard,
or nobody reported at the time. None of that is a finding that nothing happened.
Acquittal is not the end either
An acquittal means the criminal standard was not met. Because the civil standard is different,
a civil claim can succeed on the same facts. That is not a loophole. It is what having two
standards means.
And the defendant is often different anyway
Most civil abuse claims are brought against an institution rather than the individual. The
question is whether the organisation failed in its own duties, which no criminal case about
somebody else’s conduct answers.
Time limits in New York depend on how old you were, who was responsible and the particular facts. There is no single deadline that applies to everyone. Ask rather than assume. It is a free call.
The police investigated and closed the case.
A closed investigation is not a finding that nothing happened. Cases close for evidentiary and procedural reasons that have no bearing on a civil claim decided on a different standard.
The person who abused me has died.
A claim against a responsible institution can usually still proceed, because it rests on that organisation’s own failures rather than on the individual being available to answer.
Will I have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt?
No. That is the criminal standard. A civil claim is decided on the balance of probabilities, whether it is more likely than not.