You are here: / / THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT)...
, ,

THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN (THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO A PRIEST NOT EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL FOR DISCIPLINE AND WAS MOLESTED BY THE PRIEST (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision and negligent failure to warn causes of action against defendant Catholic school should not have been dismissed in this Child Victims Act case. Plaintiff alleged he was sent by the school to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for discipline. Plaintiff alleged he was molested by the priest and the school knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity:

The complaint alleges … the defendant knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity to molest children, that the defendant had a duty to exercise the same duty of care of supervision over its minor students as a reasonably prudent parent would, and that the defendant breached its duty to adequately supervise the plaintiff which caused him to be sexually abused by the priest. …  … [T]he fact that the sexual abuse occurred off school premises does not require dismissal of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision since, here, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant released the plaintiff into a potentially hazardous situation and directed him to see a certain priest for discipline knowing that the priest had a propensity to sexually abuse children … . … [T]he criminal intervention of a third party may be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of circumstances created by the defendant, for example where, as here, the plaintiff was permitted to meet with the priest, a person who allegedly had a propensity to abuse children, alone and behind closed doors … .

… Supreme Court erred in determining that the cause of action alleging negligent failure to warn was subject to dismissal because it was duplicative of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision. … [T]hese causes of action are based on distinctive facts, one based on failing to warn the plaintiff about the priest and the other based on the defendant’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff … . Sullivan v St. Ephrem R.C. Parish Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 01207, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged the Catholic school sent him to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for school-related discipline and the priest molested him. The causes of action for negligent supervision of the plaintiff-student and failure to warn the plaintiff-student should not have been dismissed. The fact that the priest was not employed by the school did not require dismissal because the school allegedly released the plaintiff into a dangerous situation. Nor did the fact that the priest allegedly committed criminal acts relieve the school of potential liability.

 

You might also like
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When Decedent Was Shot
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT TO HELP MOTHER MAKE THE TRIAL DISCHARGE WORK (SECOND DEPT).
Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained
HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT NAMING DECEDENT, RATHER THAN DECEDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE, AS A DEFENDANT WAS A NULLITY; THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE REMEDIED BY AMENDING THE COMPLAINT.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT ENTER HIS GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY; HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS PROPERLY DENIED; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED AN INADQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Cleaning Gutters Not Covered

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

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE... THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE ALLEGING...