You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision action against the school bus company and the school district should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff (J.W.) was injured by another student on the bus:

… [T]he bus company defendants and the school district established, prima facie, that they did not have sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether J. W.’s injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the bus driver and bus monitor’s alleged failure to respond appropriately as the events unfolded … , and whether the bus driver and bus monitor took “energetic steps to intervene” in the fight … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion of the bus company defendants and the school district for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Williams v Student Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02146, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
​THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF EXCESSIVE ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IRRATIONAL AND WARRANTED VACATION OF THE ENTIRE ARBITRATION AWARD (SECOND DEPT),
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S ABILITY TO BRING FUTURE PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS UNDERGOING TREATMENT OR COUNSELING (SECOND DEPT).
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VILLAGE CODE MADE THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK, THE CODE DID NOT IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER; THE PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK PROVED THE DE-ACCELERATION NOTICE WAS PROPERLY TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF, RENDERING THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Meruit

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

NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED...