You are here: / / NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMIS...
,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined a negligent supervision action against a day care provider was properly dismissed. Infant plaintiff (Kevin) was hanging by his hands when a student pulled one of his hands off, causing him to fall:

 

The defendant, as a provider of day care services, was under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . In general, the duty of a day care provider is to supervise the children in its care with the same degree of care as a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise in comparable circumstances … . However, a child care provider cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of the children in its care, and cannot reasonably be expected to guard against all of the sudden, spontaneous acts that take place among those children … . To establish a breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision in a case involving injuries caused by the acts of a fellow child, a plaintiff must show that the day care provider “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that the accident was the result of a sudden and unforeseeable act of another child, and that it had no actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct … . The defendant further established, prima facie, that the incident occurred in so short a period of time that its alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of Kevin’s alleged injuries … . Lopez v D & D Day Care, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01298, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED)/EDUCATION-SHCOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED)/DAY CARE (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED)

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHEN MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR AT AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL HEARING IN THIS PATERNITY AND CUSTODY PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF HER (NON-ATTORNEY) HUSBAND DID NOT AUTHORIZE HER HUSBAND TO FILE COURT PAPERS ON HER BEHALF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED ACTION; THE HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT IS PROHIBITED BY THE JUDICIARY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, PROVIDED AN OPINION IN THE AREA OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, THE EXPERT’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATED THE EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER THE OPINION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT; HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE FRONT DRIVER STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON (SECOND DEPT).
COURT MUST CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT BAR RAISING THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, Even Where Defendant Offers No Proof 

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

SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY... PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE,...