You are here: / / A TEACHER IS NOT A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A STUDENT...
, ,

A TEACHER IS NOT A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A STUDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW; THEREFORE A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE BY A TEACHER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the teacher (Grunwald) accused of sexual abuse of a student in this Child Victims Act suit was not a person legally responsible for the child’s care within the meaning of the Social Services Law. Therefore the defendant school district did not have a duty to report suspected abuse by the teacher:

… [P]laintiff alleged that Pioneer violated its statutory reporting duties under Social Services Law former § 413 by failing to report the abuse of plaintiff by Grunwald. Social Services Law former § 413, however, applied only where there was “reasonable cause to suspect that a child . . . [was] an abused or maltreated child” … . The Social Services Law incorporated the definition of “abused child” in the Family Court Act … , which in turn defined that term, as relevant here, as a child harmed by a “parent or other person legally responsible for [the child’s] care” … .

Under Family Court Act article 10, however, the definition “should not be construed to include [abuse by] persons who assume fleeting or temporary care of a child such as . . . those persons who provide extended daily care of children in institutional settings, such as teachers” … . Inasmuch as Grunwald, based on the allegations in the complaint, could not be the subject of a report for purposes of Social Services Law former § 413, Pioneer was not required to report any suspected abuse by him … . Solly v Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 05814, Fourth Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: The Social Services Law obligates a person legally responsible for the care of a child to report suspected child abuse. Because a teacher is not a person legally responsible for the care of a student, the school district is not subject to that reporting requirement.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT VENTURE, WHICH, UNDER PARTNERSHIP LAW, INVOLVES PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT REAL PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF HAD NO INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS TO BE USED AS AN INN OPERATED AS A JOINT VENTURE; THERFORE THE LIS PENDENS FILED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANCELLED (FOURTH DEPT).
Statutory “Reckless Disregard” Standard in Vehicle and Traffic Law 1103 (b) Applied to the Driver of a Town Truck—The Driver Was Using a Plow to Remove Water and Debris from a Road—Because the Driver Was Acting On His Own and Had Not Been Assigned to Remove the Water and Debris, the Question Raised on Appeal Was Whether the Driver Was Doing “Work” within the Meaning of Section 1103 (b) such that the Statutory Standard, as Opposed to the Ordinary Negligence Standard, Applied
IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Is Powerless After Release Signed and Filed
SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE A CRIME CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Conclusory Allegations of Customer Confusion Insufficient to Defeat Motion for Summary Judgment
Rebuttal Witness Properly Called by the People to Show Possible Bias of Defense Witness
THE AFORD PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO COMMIT GRAND LARCENY, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S... PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY...