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
ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S NEGLIGENCE FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BUT WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIS DEATH, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment—Question of Fact Raised Whether Criminal Act by Defendant’s Employee Was Foreseeable
ALTHOUGH THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER CAN BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL CAUSED BY A SIDEWALK DEFECT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER’S SPECIAL USE, HERE A CURB CUT FOR A DRIVEWAY, A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY WHO DOES NOT CONTINUE THE SPECIAL USE WILL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (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

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