You are here: / / School Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Student Was Unforeseeable—Summary...
,

School Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Student Was Unforeseeable—Summary Judgment Properly Denied

The Second Department determined the defendant school district was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate the alleged assault on another student was unforeseeable:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated … .

Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligent supervision, the District failed to establish, prima facie, that the alleged assault was an unforeseeable act or that it had no actual or constructive notice of prior conduct similar to the subject incident … . Cruz v Brentwood Union Free Sch Dist, 2015 NY Slip Op 01604, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE FATHER POSSESSED COCAINE WITH INTENT TO SELL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FATHER USED DRUGS, EXPOSED THE CHILDREN TO DRUG-DEALING, OR STORED THE DRUGS WHERE THE CHILDREN COULD ACCESS THEM (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDING UTTERLY REFUTED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN COERCED INTO SETTLING, THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT),
Collision With Another Swimmer Not Actionable/Primary Assumption of Risk
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO NOTICE THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SHE TYPED IN THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM A DETECTIVE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Account Stated Criteria Met
THE PURCHASERS BREACHED THE CONTRACT OF SALE BY INFORMING THE SELLER THEY WOULD NOT ATTEND THE “TIME OF THE ESSENCE” CLOSING; THEREFORE THE PURCHASERS ARE ENTITLED TO RETURN OF THEIR DEPOSIT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Circumstances Under Which NYC Residential Property-Owner May Be Liable for a... “Independent Contractor Rule”