You are here: / / THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING...
,

THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING AN UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT AFTER THE SCHOOL LEARNED OF A RUMOR THAT J.P. INTENDED TO FIGHT SOMEONE; WHEN CONFRONTED AND WARNED J.P. DENIED THAT HE INTENDED TO ASSAULT ANYONE; TWO DAYS LATER J.P. ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s child was assaulted at school by another child, J.P. The assistant principal had been warned that J.P. was going to fight with someone. The assistant principal warned J.P. of the consequences and alerted school security. When the assistant principal warned J.P. he denied that he intended to fight someone:

A necessary element of a cause of action alleging negligent supervision is that the district knew or should have known of J.P.’s propensity for violence … . The defendant established that the complaint and bill of particulars did not allege that J.P. had a propensity to engage in violence or that the district knew or should have known that J.P. had a propensity for violence … .

The defendant established, prima facie, that it was not made aware of any particularized threat against the child. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the defendant established that the assistant principal took reasonable steps to prevent J.P. from fighting by warning J.P. about the consequences of fighting, informing his mother of the alleged threat and the consequences of fighting, and informing the head of school security that there was an alleged threat that J.P. intended to fight someone, notwithstanding that the assistant principal was not aware of J.P.’s intended target. Under these circumstances, the defendant reasonably responded to a rumor of a threat and could not have anticipated that J.P. would have attacked the child two days later … . Further, the defendant established that “the incident occurred in so short a period of time that any negligent supervision on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries” … . Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 08277, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT BY THE CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM MANAGING AGENT STATED DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BOTH BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT; THE LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTED THE MANAGING AGENT IN AN UNRELATED MATTER INVOLVING THE CONDOMINIUM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
A LOCAL LAW WHICH CURTAILED THE POWER OF AN ELECTED OFFICER TO ACT WAS DEEMED INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC REFERENDUM (SECOND DEPT).
FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET. BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THE INFORMANT WHO CALLED 911 ABOUT A “MAN WITH A GUN” WAS KNOWN TO THE POLICE AND MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE RELIABLE, THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP THE DEFENDANT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CUSTODY MATTERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION, DESPITE A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILD DID NOT WANT PARENTAL ACCESS WITH FATHER; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER VISITATION WITH FATHER WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety
SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT (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

THE POLICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LAWFUL BASIS FOR IMPOUNDING DEFENDANT’S... RESPONDENT JUVENILE WAS DENIED HER RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL IN THIS JUVENILE...