You are here: / / County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College...
, ,

County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College and Did Not Own the Dormitory Where Plaintiff’s Decedent Suffered Cardiac Arrest and Died—County Owed No Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

Plaintiff’s decedent died of cardiac arrest in a Sullivan County Community College (SCCC) dormitory.  Plaintiff sued the county, alleging the dormitory should have been equipped with a defibrillator and/or should have had an emergency medical response plan in effect.  The Court of Appeals determined the complaint against the county was properly dismissed.  Although the county was the “sponsor” of the community college, it did not own the dormitory and did not manage the day-to-day operation of the community college, which was handled by the board of trustees (Education Law 6306):

While the County exercises significant influence and control over SCCC’s finances, only the College’s board of trustees is authorized to manage SCCC’s facilities; therefore, it alone is charged with the duty of care … . And here, the County additionally established that it did not even own the dormitory where decedent’s accident occurred … . Branch v County of Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 6-9-15

 

You might also like
FATHER DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED ON BEHALF OF HIS INFANT SON TO THE RECORDING OF THREATS MADE AGAINST HIS SON BY DEFENDANT; ABSENT THE VICARIOUS CONSENT, THE RECORDING WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
NEW YORK’S EARLY MAIL VOTER ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).
THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED INTO THE VESTIBULE OF A TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT WERE NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE APARTMENT WHERE DEFENDANT WAS SEIZED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.
THE COUNTY, UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), HAD THE POWER TO CONDEMN AN AREA ADJACENT TO AN OFFICE BULIDING FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT; THE ALLOWED PURPOSE UNDER THE EDPL WAS “COMMERCIAL:” THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PURPOSE WAS “HEALTHCARE,” NOT “COMMERCIAL,” BECAUSE THE BUILDING WOULD HOUSE DOCTORS’ OFFICES WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
FRYE HEARING PROPERLY ORDERED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DOUBLE HEARSAY ABOUT PRIOR THREAT TO KILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR HARMLESS (CT APP).
THE SCARANGELLA EXCEPTION TO STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY WHICH MAY APPLY WHEN A SAFETY FEATURE IS AVAILABLE BUT THE BUYER CHOOSES NOT TO PURCHASE IT, MAY BE APPLICABLE EVEN WHEN THE BUYER IS A RENTAL BUSINESS, SUPREME COURT’S AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S CONTRARY RULING REVERSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
“Alford” Plea in Related Criminal Proceeding Did Not Have Preclusive Effect

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Reckless Disregard” Standard of Care Applies to Operators of Street... There Is No Cause of Action for “Negligent Handling” of a Dog in...