You are here: / / IN A CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER ALLEGED TO HAVE SEXUALLY...
, ,

IN A CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER ALLEGED TO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT IN THE 60’S, THE BARE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE TEACHER’S PROPENSITY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent retention or negligent supervision of a teacher alleged to have sexually abused plaintiff in the 60’s. An allegation which merely states a bare legal conclusion is not entitled to consideration on a motion to dismiss. Here the complaint alleged defendant employer, YCQ,  “knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury:”

… [T]o sustain the cause of action sounding in negligent supervision of a child, the plaintiff was required to allege that YCQ “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . Similarly, “[a]n employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where it is shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .

Here, the complaint failed to state a cause of action alleging negligent retention of the religious studies teacher by YCQ and a cause of action alleging negligent supervision based upon YCQ’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff and/or the religious studies teacher, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that YCQ knew or should have known of the religious studies teacher’s propensity for the type of conduct at issue … . While it is true that such causes of action need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint merely asserted the bare legal conclusion that YCQ “knew or should have known of [the religious studies teacher’s] propensity to sexually abuse minor students,” without providing any factual allegations that the religious studies teacher’s sexual abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Kessler v Yeshiva of Cent. Queens, 2024 NY Slip Op 05337, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case alleging negligent retention and negligent retention of a teacher who allegedly sexually abused a student, the bare allegation that the teacher’s employer knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity was not enough to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Allegations which amount to bare legal conclusions will not be considered on a motion to dismiss.

 

You might also like
THE STIPULATION RE: SHARING HUSBAND’S PENSION AT A FUTURE DATE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND NEED NOT BE REFORMED; THE STIPULATION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE REFORMED PURSUANT TO A MOTION, A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
Son of Sam Law Required Murderer’s Police Pension Be Paid to Daughter and Estate of the Murder Victim
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO LIMIT THE REACH OF OVERLY BROAD RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IN THIS “UNSAFE INTERSECTION DESIGN” CASE BECAUSE NO STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTON HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND NO HIGHWAY-PLANNING DECISIONS HAD BEEN MADE; THE FACTS THAT THE CITY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND NO PRIOR ACCIDENTS HAD BEEN REPORTED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY HAD CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.

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

A CONTRACT BETWEEN A LANDOWNER AND A TOWN THAT PURPORTS TO BIND TOWN BOARDS... INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR...