You are here: / / College Had No Duty to Supervise Fraternity “Pledging” Activities
,

College Had No Duty to Supervise Fraternity “Pledging” Activities

The Second Department affirmed the dismissal of an action brought by a student against his college alleging a failure to supervise a fraternity’s “pledging” activities (resulting in personal injuries).  The Court wrote:

“Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” …. The existence of a legal duty presents a question of law for the court … . “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level and colleges in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students'” …. A duty, however, may be imposed upon a college where it has encouraged its students to participate in an activity and taken affirmative steps to supervise and control the activity ….  * * * [T]he plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the University defendants’ involvement in the Fraternity’s initiation process was of a degree that gave rise to a duty… . Pasquaretto v Long Is Univ, 2013 NY Slip Op 03308, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF ARRESTS JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF PISTOL PERMIT.
THE BANK DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR AND DID NOT SUBMIT AN ADEQUATE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ACTION IS DEEMED ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO TAKE ANY POSITION ON THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE.
SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

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

Jury Need Not Draw the Permissible Inference of Negligence Under Doctrine of... Property Owner’s Obligation to Remove Snow and Ice from Sidewalk​