You are here: / / DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION...
,

DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant day care center’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case was properly denied. The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured while in the care of the day care center. The facts were not described:

The defendant, as a provider of day care services, was under a duty to adequately supervise the children in its charge and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “A plaintiff is not required to exclude every other possible cause, but need only offer evidence from which proximate cause may be reasonably inferred. [The p]laintiff’s burden of proof on this issue is satisfied if the possibility of another explanation for the event is sufficiently remote or technical to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” … .

Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff’s injuries were not proximately caused by its negligence. The defendant’s submissions failed to negate a reasonable inference that the injury occurred at the defendant’s day care center and that the defendant failed to provide adequate supervision … . A.D.G. v Children’s Ark Daycare Ctr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05959, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
In Opposing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File a Note of Issue, No Need to Show Potentially Meritorious Cause of Action Where Defendant Contributed to the Delay
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Facts, Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Father’s Parental Rights—No Showing that Termination Would Increase Likelihood of Adoption
THE BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THE MORTGAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR REVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED.
Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment—Question of Fact Raised Whether Criminal Act by Defendant’s Employee Was Foreseeable
LAW OFFICE CONFUSION NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR BANK ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO ATTEND A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (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 VICTIM IN THIS KIDNAPPING CASE ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE COULD GO WITH... ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE...