You are here: / / COMPLAINT AGAINST A FOSTER CARE AGENCY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT...
,

COMPLAINT AGAINST A FOSTER CARE AGENCY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT, LOSS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND EXPENSES FOR THE CHILDREN’S CARE AND TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, the children’s guardian, stated causes of action against the foster care agency, Graham Windham, for negligent placement of the children and for loss of services of the children and expenses for care and treatment of the children:

“Counties and foster care agencies cannot be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of foster parents, who are essentially contract service providers” … . “However, counties and foster care agencies may be sued to recover damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home”… . Ultimately, to sustain a cause of action for negligent supervision, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant “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” … . …

… [A] parent may recover damages measured by the pecuniary loss sustained by the injuries to the child, including the value of the child’s services, if any, of which the parent was deprived and reasonable expenses necessarily incurred in an effort to restore the child to health … . Thus, the court should not have directed dismissal, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), of so much of the third cause of action insofar as asserted against Graham Windham as sought to recover damages for the loss of the children’s services and the expense for their care and treatment. George v Windham, 2019 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A SIDEWALK DEFECT OR A TREE WELL DEFECT, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS; THE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM CONVICTION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, NEGLIGENT LOSS OF VIDEO WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AND LIMITS ON PLAINTIFF’S ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN FUTURE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PROPERLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT).
SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND 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 MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS... TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE WRONG JURY INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURANCE...