You are here: / Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School...

Search Results

/ ,

Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

The Second Department determined plaintiff, a student playing supervised indoor floor hockey in school, stated a cause of action for negligent supervision:

“A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent” … . A school is under a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . “Whether a student is properly supervised depends largely on the circumstances attending the event'” … . * * *

The defendants’ submissions raised questions of fact as to whether the conduct of [the gym teacher], who was participating in the game during gym class and was involved in the contact which allegedly injured the plaintiff, constituted proper supervision, as well as whether the alleged negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries … . Godoy v Central Islip Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 03652, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

/

Burdens of Proof Re: Collateral Estoppel Explained

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the injunctive relief sought by defendants was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The issues had been decided in a prior appeal of a related but separate action.  The court explained the respective burdens of proof as follows:

“The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue which has necessarily been decided in a prior action and is determinative of the issues disputed in the present action, provided that there was a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision now alleged to be controlling” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and is decisive of the present action” … . “The party against whom preclusion is sought bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Zanani v Schvimmer, 2014 NY Slip Op 03680, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/

Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion

The Second Department noted that the rule barring successive summary judgment motions does not apply where the issue in the second motion was not properly before the court in the first motion.  Here the defendants had raised the issue the first time in their Reply papers and the court refused to consider it:

We note that the general proscription against successive motions for summary judgment would not bar the defendants from moving for summary judgment dismissing the consolidated complaint because their arguments in support of dismissal … were not properly before the Supreme Court on their original motion … . Vaughn v Veolia Transp Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03679, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/

Difference Between Law of the Case and Issue and Claim Preclusion Explained

The Second Department explained the difference between  the doctrines of law of the case and issue and claim and issue preclusion:

“[L];aw of the case rests on a foundation that . . . distinguishes it from issue and claim preclusion. Whereas the latter concepts are rigid rules of limitation, law of the case is a judicially crafted policy that expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, [and is]; not a limit to their power. As such, law of the case is necessarily amorphous in that it directs a court’s discretion, but does not restrict its authority”… . Matter of Mazur Bros Realty LLC v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ , ,

Collateral Estoppel Doctrine Will Not Be Invoked Unless there Has Been at Least One Full Hearing on the Issues Involved

The Second Department, in determining collateral estoppel did not apply to a Notice of Determination that plaintiff was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, explained that the collateral estoppel doctrine will not be invoked  unless there has been at least one full hearing on the issues involved:

Pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is otherwise known as issue preclusion, a party may be barred from relitigating an issue which has been decided in another proceeding by a court or in a quasi-judicial administrative forum … . In addition, … “[a];s the consequences of a determination that a party is collaterally estopped from litigating a particular issue are great, strict requirements for application of the doctrine must be satisfied to insure that a party not be precluded from obtaining at least one full hearing on his or her claim” … .

Here, the record does not demonstrate that the Notice of Determination was rendered after a hearing or that it otherwise constitutes a quasi-judicial determination … . Twaddell v Drop & Lock Stor Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03678, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Fraud—Plaintiff Agreed to Forgo Compensation for Work Done for Defendant in Return for a Stake in Defendant’s Business—Defendant Terminated the Relationship Without Paying Plaintiff

The Second Department determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for breach of contract and fraud.  The complaint alleged plaintiff had agreed to forego compensation for his construction and managerial work for defendant in return for a stake in defendant’s business.  The complaint further alleged defendant, after plaintiff had done the work, terminated the relationship without paying plaintiff:

The essential elements for pleading a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract are the existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance pursuant to the contract, the defendant’s breach of his or her contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach … . According the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint alleged that the defendants breached the parties’ agreement and that, as a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover its normal fees and compensation for the subject work. …

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . Where the gravamen of the alleged fraud does not arise from the mere failure of a promisor to perform his or her obligations under a contract, but arises from a promisor’s successful attempts to induce a promisee to enter into a contractual relationship despite the fact that the promisor harbored an undisclosed intention not to perform under the contract, a proper cause of action sounding in fraud may be stated. “[A]; false statement, promissory in nature, may be deemed the statement of a material existing fact, because it falsely represents the [declarant’s]; state of mind and the state of his [or her]; mind is a fact'” … . “There is no doubt that a misrepresented intention to perform a contract may constitute actionable fraud” … , and “a statement of present intention is deemed a statement of a material existing fact, sufficient to support a fraud action” … .

Here, viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the third cause of action alleged that the defendants made a promise to give the plaintiff an equity stake in the maple syrup venture if the plaintiff agreed to forego its normal fees and compensation for the subject work, that the defendants made that promise while harboring an undisclosed intention never to give the plaintiff such an equity stake, and that the plaintiff detrimentally relied on the defendants’ representation of intent by performing the subject work for them. These allegations were sufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud. Neckles Bldrs Inc v Turner, 2014 NY Slip Op 03668, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ , ,

Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College

The Second Department determined defendants security company (Secuitas), security guard (Jarrett) and college (Manhattanville) did not owe any duty to a taxi driver who was allegedly attacked and injured by students on a college campus.  The complaint alleged a security guard (Jarrett) was nearby and did nothing to intervene in the attack:

A contractual obligation, standing alone, generally will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party … . Before an injured party may recover as a third-party beneficiary for failure to perform a duty imposed by contract, it must clearly appear from the provisions of the contract that the parties thereto intended to confer a direct benefit on the alleged third-party beneficiary to protect him or her from physical injury … .

The plaintiff here was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Securitas and Manhattanville, as the contract did not contain any express provision that it would protect individuals on the campus from physical injury or attack … . Securitas and Jarrett did not assume a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the plaintiff by virtue of its contractual duty to provide an unarmed security guard … . Securitas did not assume a duty pursuant to the contract to prevent assaults, or to protect the plaintiff from physical injury inflicted by intervening third-party assailants … . As such, Securitas and Jarrett established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ramirez v Genovese, 2014 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/

Supreme Court Should Have Proceeded to Second Step of Defendant’s “Batson” Challenge Alleging the Prosecutor’s Exclusion of Jurors on the Basis of Race

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have proceeded to the second step of a “Batson” challenge alleging the prosecutor was excluding jurors on the basis of race.  The matter was sent back for a completion of the process:

As the United States Supreme Court stated in Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79), “[s];election procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice” (id. at 87). The first step under Batson requires a defendant to make a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” … . This first step “is not to be onerous,” and is satisfied “by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred” … . When a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenged peremptory exclusions … .

The defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination based on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude the only two prospective jurors who were black, the same race as the defendant. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, under the circumstances of this case, those facts were sufficient to create an inference of purposeful discrimination in the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges to strike the only two jurors in the venire who were black … .

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have proceeded with the second step and, if applicable, the third step of the Batson inquiry. People v Chery, 2014 NY Slip Op 03697, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Statement About Gang Affiliation Should Have Been Suppressed—Not Merely “Pedigree” Information

The Second Department determined that defendant’s statement about his gang affiliation should have been suppressed. The defendant had not yet been read his Miranda rights.  The People’s argument that the statement was simply part of so-called “pedigree” information (like “address” and “phone number”) was rejected.  The error was deemed harmless however.  People v Hiraeta, 2014 NY Slip Op 03698, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

/ ,

Supreme Court’s Finding Respondent Was No Longer Suffering from a Dangerous Mental Condition Reversed

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, over a partial dissent, determined Supreme Court erred in finding that the respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental condition and could be released from a secure psychiatric facility.  Respondent is now 74 years old and had stabbed a woman 20 years ago.  He refuses to take medication and he refused to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by the Office of Mental health. There were stark differences in the assessment of his mental condition presented at a hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20.  The experts arguing for continued retention were named Simon-Phelan and Formica:

Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03(20) defines a mental illness as “an affliction with a mental disease or mental condition which is manifested by a disorder or disturbance in behavior, feeling, thinking, or judgment to such an extent that the person afflicted requires care, treatment and rehabilitation” (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20]).

Upon our review of the record, we find that the credible evidence established that the respondent suffers from a mental illness, the first element of a dangerous mental disorder (see CPL 330.20[1];[c]). Simon-Phelan and Formica opined that the respondent suffers from bipolar disorder, along with various personality disorders, whether narcissistic, grandiose, or antisocial. Most relevant, the respondent’s behaviors, consistently displayed over the past 20 years, as thoroughly documented throughout the record, are indicative of these disorders. These behaviors include his aggressive and violent acts, his abrasiveness when speaking to others, his refusal to follow rules, his inappropriate sexual advances, his inflated self-esteem, his high level of energy, his excessive writing, and his overzealousness with respect to litigation … . Although the categorization of the respondent’s mental illness has differed between mental health professionals, a number of professionals have drawn the same conclusions as Simon-Phelan and Formica, dating back as far as 1994. As one psychiatrist put it in 2003, the debate about whether the respondent’s “pathology is Axis I or Axis II or some combination thereof . . . can be carried on indefinitely,” but when one considers his symptomatic exacerbation, poor judgment, and poor impulse control, all of which continue to exist, he remains in “the category of dangerously mentally ill.” Matter of Marvin P, 2014 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

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