A New York appellate court has dismissed sexual misconduct claims against renowned costume designer William Ivey Long. The decision, made on May 12, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Courtney Watson, who alleged that Long committed acts of sexual misconduct during their time working together at the Roanoke Island Historical Association (RIHA) between 2000 and 2003. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for claims under New York's Adult Survivors Act (ASA), which allows victims of sexual offenses to revive previously time-barred claims.
The dispute began when Watson filed a lawsuit against Long and RIHA in November 2023, alleging multiple instances of sexual misconduct, including a particularly egregious incident in 2002 when Long allegedly raped him. Watson claimed that a subsequent encounter in 2008, where Long touched him in a non-consensual manner, triggered severe anxiety and emotional distress. Watson's claims were based on the ASA, which was enacted to provide a window for adult survivors of sexual offenses to seek justice.
The case reached the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York after Long filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against him. He argued that Watson's allegations did not meet the legal definition of forcible touching under New York Penal Law § 130.52. The lower court had previously denied Long's motion, allowing the case to proceed. However, Long appealed this decision, leading to the current ruling.
The appellate court, led by Justice Troy K. Webber, ultimately ruled in favor of Long, stating that Watson's allegations did not fit within any legal theory that would support a claim of forcible touching. The court found that the actions described by Watson, such as Long grabbing his shoulders and touching his cheeks, did not constitute the type of sexual or intimate contact required by the statute. Justice Webber noted, "Long's alleged acts of grabbing plaintiff's shoulders and touching his cheeks 'with the intimacy of a grandmother greeting her grown grandchild' were not, under the circumstances, sexual or intimate in nature, as required by the statute."
The court emphasized that for a claim of forcible touching to be valid, the contact must involve sexual or other intimate parts of the body in a manner that is degrading or abusive. The court concluded that Watson's shoulders and cheeks did not meet this criterion, stating, "the touching of nonsexual body parts, standing alone, may not qualify as 'sexual contact' unless the touching is accompanied by circumstances that elevate the conduct to that of a nonconsensual act of intimacy or that involve the sexual gratification of the actor."
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving the ASA and claims of sexual misconduct. It clarifies the standards for what constitutes forcible touching and emphasizes that the context of the touching is critical in determining whether it is considered intimate or sexual. The decision may impact other survivors seeking to utilize the ASA to bring forth claims against alleged abusers.
The dissenting opinion from Justice Ellen Gesmer argued that the court should have considered the broader context of Long's prior abusive behavior towards Watson when evaluating the 2008 incident. Gesmer contended that the history of abuse should inform the interpretation of what constitutes intimate touching, suggesting that Long's actions were indeed inappropriate given their past. However, the majority opinion prevailed, leading to the dismissal of the claims against Long.
Looking ahead, this ruling may influence how courts interpret similar cases under the ASA. It sets a precedent that could make it more challenging for plaintiffs to prove claims of sexual misconduct unless the alleged actions clearly fit within the definitions set forth in the law. As such, survivors may need to present more substantial evidence of intimate or sexual contact to succeed in their claims.
As for what’s next, it remains unclear whether Watson will appeal this decision to a higher court. The court filing did not indicate any pending related cases. However, the ruling underscores the ongoing legal complexities surrounding sexual misconduct claims and the evolving landscape of survivor rights under the law.