You are here: / HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF...

Search Results

/ , , ,

HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against the school based upon alleged conduct by a teacher should not have been dismissed, despite the fact the abuse allegedly took place off school grounds: The abuse was alleged to be conduct which would violate article 130 of the Penal Law. Plaintiff was legally incapable of consent until she turned 17. The school was deemed responsible for supervision only until plaintiff turned 17:

The allegations of criminal conduct against the teacher were based on the plaintiff’s inability to consent to sexual conduct due to the plaintiff’s age, which ended when the plaintiff turned 17 years old (see Penal Law § 130.05[3][a]). Accordingly, the court properly determined that the CVA did not revive so much of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision of the plaintiff as was related to alleged conduct that occurred after the plaintiff turned 17 years old … .

… The defendants’ submissions included … the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein the plaintiff testified that all of the sexual abuse occurred off school property and outside of school hours … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff … averred that the teacher singled her out for attention, made extended eye contact with her, winked at her, and complimented her appearance in front of other staff in school. According to the plaintiff, the teacher made comments directly to other staff and in the presence of other students about the plaintiff’s appearance, and the teacher made arrangements with the plaintiff during school hours and on school grounds to meet after school where the alleged abuse took place … . Fain v Berry, 2024 NY Slip Op 03032, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Allegations of violations of Penal Law article 130 based upon the legal incapacity to consent apply only until the victim turns 17.

Practice Point: Although the alleged abuse by a teacher took place off school grounds, the teacher, during school hours, made public comments about plaintiff’s appearance and arranged to meet her after school. There the negligent supervision cause of action against the school should not have been dismissed.

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed, the common-law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Defendant BHI was not an owner of the property or a general contractor and was not present on site when plaintiff was injured. The injured plaintiff worked for another prime contractor. But BHI had previously done the work which allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury. Because BHI was not an owner or a general contractor and had no supervisory authority on the day of the accident, the Labor Law causes of action did not apply. But the common-law negligence cause of action was applicable:

A defendant that is not an owner, general contractor, or agent pursuant to the Labor Law with regard to a plaintiff’s work may nonetheless be held liable to the plaintiff under a theory of common-law negligence “where the work” the defendant “performed created the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury” … . “An award of summary judgment in favor of a subcontractor [or prime contractor] dismissing a negligence cause of action is improper where the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether [it] created an unreasonable risk of harm that was the proximate cause of the . . . plaintiff’s injuries” … . Delaluz v Walsh, 2024 NY Slip Op 03030, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: This case illustrates why it is a good idea to allege a common-law negligence cause of action in addition to a Labor Law 200 cause of action.

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORMER “EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA)” PROVIDED IMMUNITY TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS RE: COVID-19, HERE DEFENDANT NURSING HOME DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR IMMUNITY WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant nursing home did not demonstrate the three statutory requirements for immunity for COVID-related treatment were met. Plaintiff alleged plaintiff’s decedent, during his admission to defendant’s facility in March 2020, was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19:

… [T]he EDTPA [Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act] initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility “shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services” as long as three requirements were met: the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law, the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives, and the services were arranged or provided in good faith (Public Health Law former § 3082[1] …).

* * * [W]hile the EDTPA “immunized healthcare facilities from civil liability for certain acts or omissions in the treatment of patients for COVID-19 during the period of the COVID-19 emergency declaration” … , the defendant’s submissions did not establish that the three requirements for immunity were satisfied … . Damon v Clove Lakes Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ctr., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03029, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: The repeal of the former Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) does not apply retroactively.

Practice Point: A healthcare provider asserting immunity from COVID-related injury under the former EDTPA must demonstrate the three statutory requirements for immunity have been met.

 

/ , ,

PLANTIFF HAD NOT INFORMED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THIS PERSONAL INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to inform the Bankruptcy Court of this personal injury action triggered the doctrine of judicial estoppel entitling defendants to summary judgment dismissing the complaint:

While a chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor has standing to litigate cases that belong to the estate … , here the “[p]laintiff’s prolonged failure to disclose this lawsuit to the [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt renders him judicially estopped from pursuing it” … . The plaintiff took an inconsistent position in the bankruptcy proceeding by, in effect, representing that he did not have the instant legal claim. The characterization of his assets was accepted and endorsed by the bankruptcy court throughout the duration of the bankruptcy proceeding, which included, among other things, confirmation of the plaintiff’s plan … .

Based on the defense of judicial estoppel, [defendants] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them … . Cussick v R.L. Baxter Bldg. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03028, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Failure to inform the Bankruptcy Court of a cause of action (here a personal-injury suit) triggers the doctrine of judicial estoppel, prohibiting the plaintiff from bringing the suit.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS’ CONDOMINIUM WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE FORCING THEM TO LIVE ELSEWHERE FOR A YEAR; THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE TIMELY REPAIRS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANTS OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that defendants’ condominium was damaged by fire, forcing defendants to live elsewhere for a year, did not relieve defendants of the obligation to pay the common charges during that time:

… [P]laintiff submitted, inter alia, the declaration of condominium, the condominium bylaws, an affidavit from the president of the plaintiff’s management company attesting to the defendants’ failure to pay the common charges and related fees, and a ledger for the defendants’ account. Thus, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it was authorized to collect certain assessments of common charges and fees, that the defendants violated the bylaws by failing to pay the monthly common charges, and that it was entitled to recover the unpaid common charges, late fees, and reasonable attorneys fees … .

… [D]efendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the common charges had been paid or as to the amount owed. The defendants also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether their nonpayment was excused by the plaintiff’s alleged failure to make timely repairs to the unit … . “[A]n individual unit owner cannot withhold payment of common charges and assessments in derogation of the condominium’s bylaws based on defective conditions in his or her unit or in the common areas, or a disagreement with actions lawfully taken by the Board of Managers” … . Board of Mgrs. of Villas on the Lake Condominium v Policicchio, 2024 NY Slip Op 03026, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: A condominium owner cannot withhold payment of common charges based on defective conditions in the condominium or common areas. or based on disagreement with lawful actions by the Board of Managers.

 

/ , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act action, determined the respondeat superior and negligent supervision causes of action against the school alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a teacher should not have been dismissed. Essentially the complaint alleged negligent supervision of both the teacher and the child. The defendant school did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the abuse which allegedly took place over the course of a year in the same classroom during the school day:

“The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring, . . . retention, or supervision of the employee” … .

… “[A] school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . “In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over” the entirety of a school year, “and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse” … .. The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Sayegh v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 03065, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Here it was alleged plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher repeatedly over a year during the school day. There were questions of fact whether the school had constructive notice of the abuse which supported causes of action under a respondeat superior theory (negligent supervision of the teacher) and a negligent supervision theory (negligent supervision of the child).

 

/ , ,

ABSENT MOTHER’S ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGED FAMILY OFFENSE OR CONSENT TO AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PERMANENT (TWO-YEAR) ORDER OF PROTECTION WITHOUT HOLDING A FACT-FINDING HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter for fact-finding, determent the judge in this family offense proceeding should not have issued a permanent order of protection against mother without a fact-finding hearing. Unless a party admits the family offense or consents to an order of protection, the court may issue only a temporary order pending a fact-finding hearing:

… Family Court improperly issued an order of protection directing the mother, inter alia, to stay away from the father and the child for a period of two years, except for court-ordered parental access with the child. Upon expressing dissatisfaction with the mother’s behavior at the September 2023 conference, the court initially signaled an intent to issue a temporary order of protection. It then changed course and chose to issue an order of protection that it described as “permanent” and that would last “two years.” However, the court did so without holding a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the mother committed the family offenses alleged in the father’s petition. Nor did it obtain an admission from the mother that she committed such family offenses or secure her consent to the issuance of the order of protection. The court therefore failed “to observe the procedural steps set forth in Family Ct Act § 154-c(3)” before issuing that order … . … [S]ince a fact-finding hearing was not held and the court otherwise rendered its determination without receiving any evidence demonstrating that the mother committed the alleged family offenses, the record is not sufficient for this Court to render an independent determination on that question … . Matter of Acker v Teneyck, 2024 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Although a Family Court judge can issue a temporary order of protection during a family offense proceeding, the judge cannot issue a permanent order of protection unless the opposing party admits the family offense, consents to the order of protection, or the court holds a fact-finding hearing.

 

/ , , ,

THE ORDER IMPLEMENTING THE PLAINTIFFS’ PLAN FOR THE SEALING OF NYPD’S RECORDS OF FAVORABLY TERMINATED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTED TO A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITHOUT A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kern, over a dissenting opinion, determined the order by Supreme Court implementing plaintiffs’ plan for sealing the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD’s) records of criminal prosecutions which are favorably terminated amounted to a permanent injunction issued without a determination on the merits, either by way of a summary judgment motion or a trial:

The New York sealing statutes at issue here, enacted in 1976, require that upon the favorable termination of a criminal proceeding or a noncriminal conviction, unless the government demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that the interests of justice require otherwise, “arrest information,” including photos, palm and fingerprints of arrestees, and official records and papers relating to an arrest or prosecution, will be “sealed and not made available” to any person or public or private agency, subject to six statutorily enumerated exceptions (Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50, 160.55 [Sealing Statutes]). * * *

We find that Supreme Court erred by prematurely issuing an overbroad permanent injunction without first making a final determination on the merits of the claim after a trial or summary judgment motion. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the Implementing Order is a permanent injunction rather than a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary injunction “is not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties, but to maintain the status quo until there can be a full hearing on the merits” … . Conversely, a permanent injunction is a type of final judgment that is issued on the merits of the claims asserted … . R.C. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03017, First Dept 6-4-24

Practice Point: An order which includes no indication it is temporary is a permanent, not a preliminary, injunction which should not issue without a determination on the merits by summary judgment motion or trial.

 

/ ,

THE NONPARTY OPERATOR OF AN ANONYMOUS WEBSITE WHICH POSTED ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ABOUT RESPONDENT BUSINESS WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN HER ANONYMITY PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT; HER MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AIMED AT REVEALING HER IDENTITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FISRT DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined nonparty BehindMLM, the anonymous operator of a website which posts articles, was entitled to her anonymity. The respondent GSB had obtained a default judgment in Germany in a defamation action against Google (which hosts the website) and GoDaddy where the site’s domain name is registered. The defamation action was based on articles posted by BehindMLM. BehindMLM was never notified of GSB suit. GSB brought the instant action pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) to compel Google and GoDaddy to reveal BehindMLM’s identity and served subpoenas on Google and GoDaddy for the relevant documents.. After learning of the action, BehindMLM moved to quash the subpoenas:

BehindMLM posted four articles stating that various corporate entities were engaged in a “Ponzi scheme,” frauds, and scams. In 2022, one of the companies mentioned in one of those articles, petitioner GSB Gold Standard (GSB), brought two separate actions against Google in a German court … . * * *​

The issue of whether BehindMLM’s statements were defamatory was not actually litigated and determined in that action, since the German orders were issued on default … . BehindMLM was not a party to the German proceedings, was not notified of the proceedings and was not given an opportunity to litigate the matter … . * * *

We hold that when a party seeks an anonymous online speaker’s identifying information, courts must first require the party to take reasonable efforts to provide the speaker with notice and an opportunity to appear in the action or proceeding … . * * *

When a speaker asserts a First Amendment right to anonymous online speech … , a court should consider the First Amendment rights at stake, whether the party seeking disclosure has stated a showing of a prima facie defamation claim, and the balance of the equities … . This Court has stated that “we should protect against the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas” … .  * * *

… [E]ven if GSB had stated a valid claim of defamation per se by alleging that the statements were false and harmed its business … , the broad and conclusory allegations in the verified petition did not sufficiently establish the falsity of BehindMLM’s statements … . Upon our consideration of all relevant factors, including the weak evidentiary showing and BehindMLM’s asserted First Amendment right to speak anonymously on matters of public concern, we conclude that, on the record as now presented, BehindMLM is constitutionally entitled to maintain her anonymity. Matter of GSB Gold Std. Corp. AG v Google LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02983, First Dept 5-30-24

​Practice Point: Here the First Department protected the First Amendment rights of the nonparty anonymous operator of a website which published allegedly defamatory articles about respondent. The respondent’s subpoenas for documents which would reveal the nonparty’s identity were quashed.

 

/ ,

A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) EVALUATION BASED UPON THE EXPIRED 2012 GUIDELINES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD; A SECOND SLU EVALUATION BASED UPON THE CURRENT 2018 GUIDELINES HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BUT WAS NOT RELIED UPON BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the fact that the claimant’s treating physician’s (Harley’s) initial schedule loss of use (SLU) evaluation was based on the expired 2012 guidelines, not the most recent 2018 guidelines, and therefore should not have been considered. The treating physician had subsequently submitted another SLU evaluation based on the 2018 guidelines with a significantly higher percentage of loss:

Inasmuch as Harley’s permanency examination of claimant was “the first medical evaluation of SLU” and occurred after January 1, 2018, Harley improperly relied upon and applied the 2012 Guidelines in rendering his SLU opinion. As such, the Board’s reliance upon Harley’s medical report and testimony was erroneous; its decision is therefore not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed … . Matter of Garofalo v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02961, Third Dept 5-30-24

Practice Point: A schedule loss of use (SLU) evaluation based upon expired guidelines should not be relied upon in a Worders’ Compensation proceeding.

 

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