What was Eric Schneiderman accused of in 2018 and were there criminal convictions?

1. What the allegations actually said and who spoke out: detailing the accusations

The public accusations in May 2018 alleged that Schneiderman physically assaulted at least four women who were romantic partners, including claims of slapping, choking, and other non‑consensual or abusive conduct reported in a New Yorker article; one of the accusers, Tanya Selvaratnam, described being hit during sex and subjected to degrading role‑play, language, and forceful behavior ^{[2] [3]}. The pattern reported by multiple women formed the basis for the immediate political consequence—his resignation on May 7–8, 2018—because the allegations portrayed a sustained pattern of abusive conduct across private relationships rather than a single disputed incident ^{[1] [4]}. The published accounts presented specific details of incidents, and Schneiderman publicly denied any non‑consensual wrongdoing, characterizing the encounters as consensual role‑playing in private ^[2].

2. The rapid political fallout: resignation and immediate responses

Within days of the New Yorker publication, Schneiderman resigned from office, a departure described in contemporaneous reporting as driven by the severity and multiplicity of the allegations and by calls from political peers for his stepping down; the resignation occurred on May 7–8, 2018, and was widely reported as a direct consequence of the exposé ^{[1] [4]}. Political leaders and advocacy groups framed the resignation as necessary given Schneiderman’s prior public profile as an advocate for women and victims, which sharpened perceptions of hypocrisy and intensified media coverage. The swift political outcome did not equate to legal adjudication; the resignation removed him from public office but did not, on its own, resolve legal questions about criminal liability or evidentiary sufficiency ^{[5] [4]}.

3. The criminal‑law review: special prosecution and why charges were not filed

A special prosecutor, appointed after the allegations, conducted a six‑month review led by Nassau County District Attorney Madeline Singas and concluded that criminal prosecution was barred by legal impediments—notably statutes of limitations and evidentiary hurdles—so prosecutors declined to bring charges ^{[1] [6]}. Reporting and subsequent summaries indicate the decision was grounded in established criminal‑law standards and timing constraints rather than in affirmative findings of innocence; investigators reportedly examined testimony and evidence but determined that the applicable statutes and the passage of time precluded successful prosecution. The lack of criminal charges therefore reflects prosecutorial assessments of legal viability rather than a judicial determination on the merits of the accusations ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Professional discipline: law‑license suspension and later reinstatement

Although Schneiderman faced no criminal convictions, the professional regulatory system addressed the conduct through the Attorney Grievance Committee, resulting in a one‑year suspension of his law license, a disciplinary outcome separate from criminal law; reporting indicates he completed the suspension and later was permitted to resume practicing law, with reinstatement occurring in subsequent years ^{[7] [6]}. This administrative sanction reflects a different legal standard—focusing on professional fitness rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt—and demonstrates that regulatory bodies can impose consequences even when criminal prosecutors decline to file charges. The disciplinary record is therefore an important post‑resignation development that evidences institutional response outside the criminal‑justice process ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Schneiderman’s denials, public framing, and contested narratives

Schneiderman consistently denied allegations of non‑consensual abuse, asserting that private sexual encounters involved consensual role‑playing, a denial reiterated as part of his public statements after the New Yorker piece; his defenders and some commentators emphasized the absence of criminal charges as relevant context, while critics pointed to the multiplicity and similarity of accounts as supporting patterns of misconduct ^{[2] [5]}. Media accounts and legal follow‑ups thus presented competing narratives: one stressing absence of criminal conviction and legal limits, the other highlighting the sworn accounts, timing, and professional sanction. These parallel strands—denial and regulatory penalty—have shaped ongoing public interpretation despite the lack of criminal adjudication ^{[1] [4]}.

6. The broader picture: what remains settled and what does not

What is settled: Schneiderman resigned in May 2018 after multiple women publicly alleged physical and verbal abuse, prosecutors reviewed the allegations and did not bring criminal charges, and professional disciplinary action led to a temporary law‑license suspension ^{[1] [6] [7]}. What remains unresolved in a courtroom sense is definitive criminal culpability, because no trial or criminal conviction ever occurred, leaving legal guilt or innocence unlitigated by a jury ^{[3] [6]}. The record therefore combines serious allegations and administrative consequences with the absence of criminal prosecution, creating enduring public debate about accountability, evidentiary limits, and the different outcomes available under criminal, civil, and professional regulatory systems ^{[2] [7]}.