You are here: / No “Negligent Supervision” Cause of Action Against School Based on Stu...

Search Results

/ ,

No “Negligent Supervision” Cause of Action Against School Based on Student Attacking Another Student

In ruling that the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in a “negligent supervision” case should have been granted, the Third Department determined the school district could not have reasonably anticipated the attack of one student upon another.  The school personnel had been alerted to the possibility of an impending fight between the two students and had intervened.  The school personnel were assured by the student who ultimately attacked plaintiff’s daughter that she did not intend to fight plaintiff’s daughter.  The Third Department wrote:

…[A] school district will only be held liable for injuries intentionally inflicted by another  student  where  it is established that the dangerous conduct “could reasonably have been anticipated,” i.e., where school authorities had actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct on the part of the offending student ….  Even where such notice is present and the consequent duty of supervision is breached, the plaintiff must further show that the alleged injury “was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence”  … .The adequacy of supervision and the existence of proximate cause  are generally factual issues for a  jury to resolve … .

Regardless of any questions of fact regarding whether enough staff members were present in the hallway to prevent or break up the fight, defendant was entitled to summary judgment because it established that it could not have reasonably anticipated the attack.  Conklin v Saugerties Central School District, 515709, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

/ ,

No Negligence Based on Defendant’s Dog Barking [Which Allegedly Caused Plaintiff to Fall from Her Horse as the Horse Broke Into a Run]

Plaintiff was injured when she fell from her horse.  The defendant was jogging behind the horse with her dogs. Plaintiff alleged barking caused the horse to break into a canter or a run.  The Third Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  After discussing the principles underlying assumption of the risk in this context and the permissible causes of action based on the behavior of animals, the Third Department wrote:

“The mere act of [walking] . . . in close proximity to an unknown horse, as the complaint alleges, does  not present an  issue of negligence, as a matter of law” …. In this regard, defendant – who had  no  prior experience with horses – was  walking on  a public highway, where  she had  every right to be  (see Vehicle and  Traffic Law  §  1156  [b]).  She slowed down  to evaluate the horses and riders ahead  of her, and, while she did not stop, she was  still 50 yards away when plaintiff and her daughter lost control of their horses. Morever, plaintiffs’ negligence claim also fails because they alleged no facts from which it could be inferred that defendant’s actions, in walking on a public street or otherwise, were the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries … . Filer v Adams, 515403, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

/

Emergency Doctrine Not Applicable to Striking Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Body in Roadway

The Third Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant based upon the emergency doctrine.  Defendant struck the decedent’s body which was in the roadway.  Although defendant slowed when she saw the brake lights and flashers on vehicles ahead of her, she continued driving at about 50 miles per hour:

We are not persuaded that these facts demonstrate, as a matter of law, that defendant was confronted with an emergency situation that left her with little time for deliberation or that her reaction was reasonable such that there was nothing she could have done to avoid the accident.  Notably, “it is not uncommon for motorists to encounter debris or other hazards in the roadway” …and, here, by defendant’s own testimony, she had  notice from at least 20  or 30  car lengths away that something  out of the ordinary was  happening  on  the highway ahead  ….   Further, there is also deposition testimony of the front seat passenger in codefendants’ vehicle, which had arrived at the scene and  first struck either decedent or his motorcycle.  This witness testified that, as decedent was  lying in the roadway, other vehicles stopped at the scene without striking him, and at least one other vehicle passed through the scene without incident.  In light of  this testimony,  “a question  arises as to whether defendant should have anticipated and been prepared to deal with the situation confronting [her]” and  whether  her actions were reasonable under the circumstances… . Hallenbeck …v Smith…, 515155, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

/

Res Ipsa Loquitur Proof Requirements Not Met Re: Cause of Fire

A fire apparently started in the vicinity of a gas grill resulting in the destruction of an apartment building.  In affirming summary judgment granted to the defendants, the Third Department noted that an unsigned report from the fire department was properly ignored by the motion court and plaintiff was not entitled to an inference of negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:

…[P]laintiff has not established its entitlement to an inference of negligence pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. To do so, plaintiff was required to demonstrate, among other things, that the fire was one that ordinarily would not have occurred in the absence of defendants’ negligence….   While plaintiff need not have eliminated every alternative explanation for the event, it was required to demonstrate that the probability of other causes was so reduced that defendants’ negligence was more likely than not to have caused the injury….  In view of plaintiff’s failure to proffer any admissible evidence – or, indeed, any evidence whatsoever based upon more than pure speculation – that negligence was a factor in the cause of the fire, plaintiff has not met its burden of demonstrating that res ipsa loquitor applies … .  92 Court Street…. v Monnet, et al, 514458, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

/ ,

Only Personnel Records Used to Evaluate Police Officer’s Performance Protected from Disclosure​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department determined that the records of a hit-and-run accident involving a state trooper, sought in a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request made by a newspaper journalist, may be protected by the Civil Rights Law 50-a if they are personnel records used to evaluate performance toward continued employment, even after employment has been terminated.  In this particular case, however, the Third Department ruled that the respondent (police department) failed to demonstrate that the records sought fell squarely within the Civil Rights Law exception and the motion to dismiss should not have been granted.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss must nevertheless be denied because, at this juncture, it has failed to demonstrate that the requested records “fall[] squarely within the exemption”….   Here, petitioners’ FOIL request sought all “records, in any form” that “relate[d] to” the off-duty incident involving Beardsley. In reply, respondent withheld all of the requested records on the basis of a blanket invocation of Civil Rights Law § 50-a, without describing any of the documents withheld or offering a specific basis for the claimed exemption … .  In the Matter of Hearst Corporation… v New York State Police, 515693, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

/ ,

No Conversion Action for Real Property; No Conversion Action Where Money Transferred Pursuant to Agreement

In affirming the dismissal of a complaint in which it was alleged the purchase of a building was induced by misrepresentations, the First Department noted there can be no action for conversion of real property, and there can be no action for conversion of money which was transferred pursuant to an agreement:

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleging conversion. As it accurately noted, to the extent plaintiff based that cause of action on an alleged conversion of its 7% fee interest in the premises, the claim must fail because a party may not sustain a claim for conversion of real property …. Similarly, while a party can properly assert a claim for conversion of money …the $2 million cannot be the subject of a conversion claim here. Even accepting the truth of the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff does not allege that defendants wrongfully exercised dominion over those funds in derogation of plaintiff’s ownership … [conversion is the unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another to the exclusion of the owner’s rights][internal citations omitted]). On the contrary, by alleging that it agreed to, and did, transfer the funds in return for the 7% interest in the property, plaintiff tacitly concedes that possession of the money was authorized. B & C Realty, co v 159 Emmut Props LLC, 3013 NY Slip Op 03913, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

/ ,

“Hose Company” Not Entitled to Payment of Tax Monies to Fire Department

The Third Department determined that a “hose company” was not part of the fire department and thus was not entitled to the payment of tax monies slated for the fire department:

The members of Citizens Hose are not trained to perform interior or exterior firefighting and, on the rare occasions when they are paged to assist the fire department, the few members who respond are limited to performing auxiliary services such as coiling hoses, directing traffic and  cleaning equipment. The evidence at trial established that whenever  the fire department  requires assistance in actually fighting a fire, it makes  a mutual aid call to volunteer fire companies in surrounding communities. Citizens Hose is not part of the mutual aid call system.  Krol … v Porter, 516002, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

/

A Default Judgment Not Supported by “Proof of the Facts Constituting the Claim” as Required by CPLR 3215 (f) Is Not a Nullity​

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that the failure to file “proof of the facts constituting the claim” (as required by CPLR 3215(f)) in an application for a default judgment is not a jurisdictional defect that renders a default judgment a nullity.  The Court wrote:

…[T]he word “jurisdiction” is often loosely used. But in applying the principle “that a judgment rendered without subject matter jurisdiction is void, and that the defect may be raised at any time and may not be waived” …, it is necessary to understand the word in its strict, narrow sense. So understood, it refers to objections that are “fundamental to the power of adjudication of a court” …. “Lack of jurisdiction” should not be used to mean merely “that elements of a cause of action are absent” …, but that the matter before the court was not the kind of matter on which the court had power to rule.

The defect in the default judgment before us is not jurisdictional in this sense. A failure to submit the proof required by CPLR 3215(f) should lead a court to deny an application for a default judgment, but a court that does not comply with this rule has merely committed an error — it has not usurped a power it does not have. The error can be corrected by the means provided by law — i.e., by an application for relief from the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015. It does not justify treating the judgment as a nullity.  Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation v H & A Locksmith, Inc…, No 118,CtApp, 5-30-13

 

/ ,

SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause Not Applicable​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) did not render the statute punitive and thereby violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or violate the Double Jeopardy prohibition with respect to the defendant:

It may be true that subjecting sex offenders to lifetime registration and notification requirements, with their attendant obligations and restrictions, increases the difficulties and embarrassment a sex offender may endure, even where he has led a law-abiding life since his conviction. However, in assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy …, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although “one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, . . . they do not violate the ex post facto clause . . . . People v Parilla, 2013 NY Slip Op 03931, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

/

Failure to Get Court’s Permission to Represent to a Grand Jury Required Dismissal of Indictment​

The First Department determined that the prosecutor’s failure to get court permission to represent a case to a grand jury need not be preserved by objection and required dismissal of the indictment:

The failure to obtain court authorization to re-present the charges to a second grand jury implicates the power to prosecute…; thus, defendant was not required to alert the court to the authorization requirement of CPL 190.75(3), or otherwise object, in order to preserve the issue for appellate review. Where, as here, the prosecutor presented charges and the grand jury failed to vote to either dismiss them or indict the defendant, a situation arose “in which the court, and not the prosecutor, should have decided whether re-presentation to a second grand jury was appropriate”…. In the absence of court authorization, dismissal of the indictment is required …. People v Miller, 2013 NY Slip Op 03928, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

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