You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision action against the school bus company and the school district should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff (J.W.) was injured by another student on the bus:

… [T]he bus company defendants and the school district established, prima facie, that they did not have sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury … . However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether J. W.’s injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the bus driver and bus monitor’s alleged failure to respond appropriately as the events unfolded … , and whether the bus driver and bus monitor took “energetic steps to intervene” in the fight … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion of the bus company defendants and the school district for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Williams v Student Bus Co., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02146, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

You might also like
THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCITIZENS; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE HER GUILTY PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JUDGE THAT DEFENDANT SAID SHE WAS A CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).
IN A HYBRID PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW UNDER CPLR ARTICLE 78 AND SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES, A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE FOR BOTH; HERE THERE WAS NO MOTION TO DISMISS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSES OF ACTION; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE TOLLING PROVISION OF CPLR 205 APPLIES TO AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING SEEKING REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, THE PETITION, WHICH WAS MARKED OFF THE CALENDAR BUT WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, CAN BE RE-FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
Prima Facie Proof Requirements for Entitlement to Payment of “No-Fault” Medical Expenses Clarified
BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED.

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

NONPARTY LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED...