You are here: / / School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a...
, ,

School Employee’s After-Hours Inappropriate Behavior Involving a Student Was Not Proximately Caused by Negligent Supervision/Retention of the Employee or Negligent Supervision of the Student on the Part of the School District

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and granted the defendant school district’s motion to dismiss the complaint.  The school’s marching band director, Perna, engaged in inappropriate communications with plaintiff’s child, KS, a student who was in the marching band.  The communications by computer and cell phone took place off school grounds after hours.  The Second Department determined the band director’s after-hours behavior was not proximately caused by negligent retention or supervision of Perna or negligent supervision of KS:

Because the inappropriate conduct by Perna toward KS, the plaintiff’s child, occurred after school hours and off school grounds by means of their personal computers and cellular phones, the causes of action alleging negligent retention and supervision cannot provide a basis for liability against the appellants. Although KS first met Perna through the marching band, KS’s injuries were not proximately caused by any negligent retention or supervision by the appellants … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent supervision of KS, since the appellants established, prima facie, that the wrongful acts occurred outside of the school grounds … and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. MS, etc. v Arlington Cent. School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 04290, 2nd Dept 5-20-15

 

You might also like
EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY MADE, RESCISSION OF THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS JUSTIFIED.
Prejudice to County Investigation Stemming from Plaintiff’s Describing the Wrong Location of the Slip and Fall in the Notice of Claim Precluded Plaintiff from Amending the Notice
THE ALLEGATION A PLASTIC SURGEON POSTED BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF WITHOUT PERMISSION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (THIRD DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR AND PARKING LOT MANAGER NOT LIABLE FOR SLIP AND FALL UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK SUFFICIENTLY PROVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
Default Judgment of Foreclosure Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Plenary Proceeding/Former Property Owner Cannot Contest Sale of Property After Default Judgment of Foreclosure
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PHYSICAL PARTITION OR SALE IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY RE: A FOUR-FAMILY BROWNSTONE.

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

Question of Fact Whether Embankment Near a Stream Was an “Open and Obvious”... Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid...