You are here: / / NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY...
,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the negligent supervision cause of action against the school district was properly dismissed. Infant plaintiff, a student who had a one-on-one aide, was injured when she went to the bathroom unaccompanied. She caught her finger in a bathroom door:

While a school district is not an insurer of the safety of its students, since it cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of their movements and activities, it has a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . Where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the school defendant is warranted … . Here, the District made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that any alleged inadequacy in the level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . Hinz v Wantagh Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 07105, Second Dept 10-24-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERLY DISMISSED, STUDENT PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD A ONE-ON-ONE AIDE BUT WENT TO THE BATHROOM UNACCOMPANIED, WAS INJURED WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FINGER IN A BATHROOM DOOR (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
The Facts that a Witness Had Given a Statement to the Police and Was on the People’s Witness List Did Not Demonstrate the People Had Control Over the Witness—Request for Missing Witness Charge Properly Denied
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE DEFENDANT BY WILL UPON THE DEATH OF THE PROPERTY OWNER; THEREFORE THE ESTATE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT PRESENT NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER A CO-WORKER WAS HOLDING THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND IMPROPERLY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE VILLAGE LAW REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF REFERENDUM PETITION.

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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS... TOWN CODE PROVISION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE TOWN LAW AND WAS THEREFORE VOID...