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
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) HAS EXCLUSIVELY APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE A MATTER THAT HAS NOT FIRST BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A DECISION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, ALTHOUGH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS VIOLATED, THE VIOLATION WAS NOT A BASIS FOR ANNULMENT OF THE ZBA DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KEPT RUNNING, RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A SINGLE INCIDENT OF ALLEGED EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (GRABBING THE CHILD’S ARM AND SQUEEZING TIGHTLY) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; A NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
Prior Written Notice Law Protects City from Liability for Dangerous Road Condition.
DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED FAILURE TO CLEAN UP LOOSE GRAVEL IN A BIKE PATH AFTER PATCHING A HOLE CAUSED THE BICYCLE ACCIDENT.

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

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