You are here: / / Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice...
,

Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice of Dangerous Conduct Precluded Summary Judgment to Plaintiff

In reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, the Second Department determined there was a question of fact concerning whether the defendant school district adequately supervised students (the plaintiff was assaulted by another student):

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … . “In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities 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” … . Braunstein v Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 2013 NY Slip Op 02039, 2012-04442, Inex No 23108/09, 2nd Dept. 3-27-13

THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

You might also like
Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).
Income of Mother’s Cohabiting Fiance Should Not Have Been Considered in Determining Mother’s Entitlement to Assigned Counsel
DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BY MERELY POINTING OUT ALLEGED GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT IT MUST CONSIDER, THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE NOTE WAS ENDORSED IN BLANK; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Subcontractor Could Not Recover From Property Owners Absent Proof the Owners Consented to Pay the Subcontractor—Owners Hired the General Contractor Who In Turn Hired the Subcontractor
Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))

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

Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow and...