You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED...
, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined there exists a question of fact whether decedent’s university (Binghamton) owed decedent a duty to warn decedent of the hostility toward decedent harbored by another student (Roque), a former friend of the decedent, who murdered decedent:

To hold defendant liable for negligence, claimant must establish that the University owed decedent a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of decedent’s death … . The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty of care … . The existence and scope of a duty are legal questions for the courts to resolve in the first instance … .

… Claimant … is not seeking to hold the University liable for failing to protect decedent simply by virtue of his status as a student on campus … . The crux of claimant’s argument, as we understand it, is that counselors employed by the University’s Counseling Center were negligent in failing to make a threat assessment referral to the Dean of Students’ office upon learning of Roque’s hostility toward decedent in the months before the attack and in failing to warn decedent of Roque’s threats against him. Since the specific acts of negligence occurred during the University’s provision of mental health services — a proprietary function … — we conclude that no special duty need be established to hold the University liable and it is “held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity” … . * * *

Given that the University had threat assessment and referral procedures in place governing actions to take when faced with a distressed student, we conclude that the University owed decedent a duty to reasonably comply with those policies, if applicable … . Cuomo v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held a state university may have a “general” (not a “special”) duty to warn a student of hostility harbored by another student.

 

You might also like
People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS WARNED HE WOULD BE SENTENCED EVEN IF HE DIDN’T APPEAR AT SENTENCING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SENTENCED DEFENDANT IN ABSENTIA WITHOUT FIRST INQUIRING INTO THE REASON AND WHETHER DEFENDANT COULD BE LOCATED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT WAS INCOMPLETE, AND, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF FATHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS SUFFICIENT, FAMILY COURT DID NOT TAKE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN INTO CONSIDERATION, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
RESPONDENT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE JULY 2015 MENTAL HYGIENE ARTICLE 10 TRIAL; COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN NOT REQUESTING A FRYE HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE OSPD DIAGNOSIS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A FRYE HEARING BASED UPON WHAT WAS KNOWN ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT THE TIME OF THE 2015 TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
Competing Expert Affidavits Raised a Question of Fact About Whether the Speed of Defendant’s Vehicle Was a Proximate Cause of the Accident—Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck Broadside by Defendant’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Into Traffic–Supreme Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Reversed
THE THIRD DEPT EXERCISED ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION AND VACATED DEFENDANT’S PLEA BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
TOWN BOARD’S DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING THE BLASTING AND REMOVAL OF ROCK WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS DESPITE THE TOWN’S IMPROPER CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION GATHERED OUTSIDE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT PROCESS, THE TOWN’S RULING WAS SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL LAW CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (THIRD DEPT).
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING, DESPITE ITS CIVIL NATURE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (THIRD 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

HERE THE PARTY WHO WAS AWARDED COSTS ON APPEAL WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT... THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW PROHIBITS THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF...