You are here: / / IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES...
, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFFS-STUDENTS, AN ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT WAS DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISON AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined that the cause of action alleging defendant school’s negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment for plaintiff-students, although sufficiently pled, must be dismissed as duplicative of the negligent supervision and negligent retention causes of action:

… [T]he duty element for plaintiffs’ [“failure to provide a safe and secure environment”] claim is premised on the special duty owed to them under the doctrine of in loco parentis. … [T]eachers and schools owe their students “such care of them as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” …. . This duty stems from the fact that schools “in assuming physical custody and control over [their] students, effectively take[] the place of parents and guardians” … . Negligence claims based on in loco parentis require actual or constructive notice to the school of previous similar conduct … .

Although plaintiffs adequately pleaded a claim for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment, this claim should have been dismissed as duplicative of plaintiffs’ claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention. A cause of action is duplicative when it relies on the same facts and seeks the same relief as another cause of action … . Significantly, “‘it is not the theory behind a claim that determines whether it is duplicative,’ but rather the conduct alleged and the relief sought” … .

Here, the fact that the cause of action for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment is based on a different theory — the duty of in loco parentis — than the other causes of action pleaded is not germane to whether it is duplicative. Rather, the claim is duplicative because the conduct alleged and the relief sought, for both the failure to provide a safe and secure environment and the negligent supervision and retention claims, are identical. John Doe 42 v Yeshiva Univ., 2026 NY Slip Op 00225, First Dept 1-20-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of duplicative causes of action. Here the action for negligent failure to provide a safe and secure environment was deemed duplicative of the actions for negligent supervision and negligent retention, even though it was based on a different theory (in loco parentis).

 

You might also like
PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST FOR A POLICE MANUAL WAS AT FIRST DENIED, BUT WAS GRANTED AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE A GOOD REASON FOR FIRST DENYING THE REQUEST; PETITIONER “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” AND WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
IN 2011 PLAINTIFF WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR YEARS; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED AND TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; HERE DAMAGE CAUSED BY “INTERIOR TILE” WORK WAS COVERED UNDER THE POLICY; IN PREPARING THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR TILING THE INSURED USED WELDING EQUIPMENT WHICH CAUSED A FIRE; THE INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PREPARATORY WORK WAS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COVERAGE FOR “INTERIOR TILE” WORK (FIRST DEPT).
NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, RETENTION AND TRAINING CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IT WAS ALLEGED EMPLOYEES OF A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY BURNED A NONVERBAL, AUTISTIC RESIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM HE “MOST LIKELY” WOULD BE DEPORTED WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA; ONE DISSENT (FIRST 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 FACT THAT THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL WERE NOT MET DID... DEFENDANTS OPENED A COMPETING HAIR SALON AND WRONGFULLY ACCESSED PLAINTIFF’S...